Found this at http://www.tencommandments.org, under the atheist link, the bolded part is actually bolded on the site. And there’s six LONG pages about this, if you’re really bored.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. Satan is its author.
It’s important to remain conscious of the fact that Satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary’s meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says “under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God’s existence.”
Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.
Atheism is the ultimate of Satanism. Ask Satan does God exist and he will deny it. Ask him does Satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other.
Go read the rest of it, its funny as hell, and full of shit. Being an atheist, this doesn’t upset me, make me angry, or anything else, it just makes me laugh. Since when do atheists refuse to admit the existence of God, despite the fact that we obviously know he exists (ha fucking ha), that is the complete opposite of what athiests believe. We believe (I’m reffering to about most, not all atheist), that there simply is no God, I don’t see why people don’t see that. Later on in the fictional fairy tale, Robert Lee (author of paper), states that we refuse to admit the true author of The Ten Commandments, because the ideas stated are beyond human authorship, which proves their divine authorship. With the exception of of the first four commandments, which refers specifically to God, almost every religion (including Atheism) known to man holds these to be true, because it they are human nature due to our compassion, and morality (with of course exceptions, such as rapists and crooks). It just amazes me how many true believers are against atheism more so than any other religion that is not their own, and using arguments that aren’t legitimate arguments because it just shit written by people too blinded by their own faith to see the truth of another’s.
Posted on 12/29/2005 at 03:06 AM 
Double-dipping.
To make the nature of my objection absolutely clear, there are two issues at stake that mustn’t be conflated.
First, I take a dim view of anybody that tries to portray that commandment, no matter how translated, as an attempt to justify the elimination of undesirables. To put it mildly, the author of the website is way out of line, but so are some posters here. I don’t believe that this commandment can be reasonably interpreted that way and anybody on either side of the debate that attempts to do so should be called on it.
Second, there is the underlying moral question concerning the justafiability of taking a life and how the versions translated as ‘not kill’or ‘not murder’ compare. Please note that the commandment is silent on exactly what it is that mustn’t be killed or murdered. Any life at all? Sentient life? Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Intelligent space aliens? There are other definitional problems, like what is meant by ‘kill’ or ‘murder’?
Since the commandment itself is silent on that score, the fundamentalist interpretation should be the broadest possible, which makes me wonder how such a fundamentalist gets food on the table. If we limit ourselves to beings meeting a certain threshold of sentience (in itself a fuzzy boundary), one runs into pragmatic and theological problems. The most fundamentalist interpretation of prohibiting killing should lead one to the untenable position of avoiding any action that could lead to the conceivable loss of life, like driving a car.
It doesn’t matter how you phrase the commandment, it needs context to delineate the boundary cases and it’s a matter of preference how you phrase “In general, killing is unjustified, but there are regrettable exceptions.” Having said that, there will always be somebody trying to broaden the limits in furtherance of a personal agenda. For all my dislike of Christianity, I don’t want to fall into the trap of confusing extremists with the vast majority of Christians.