Well, hopefully not *too* oddly.

Really, honest, truly, I don’t find anything in that list that I find violates my personal Christianity or even what I would consider mainstream Christian thought. 

I think many Christians would consider these insufficient by themselves, but, then, the original Decalogue themselves are insufficient in Christian thought.

The only thing I might amend would be #4, to read , “Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of a purported good or noble cause.” Because any sort of ideology or ideals, from tribalism to religion to politics to nationalism, can lead to atrocities.  (It can also lead to good things, too, but at the very least a cautionary note is required.)

i like the one about living this one life to the fullest, not worrying about some “afterlife”, and letting it affect the life you are living now. and do not believe eveything you are told.

They should definitely rewrite this for ”All Human Beings” rather than just atheists.  I think it would make the world a better place.  And I like Dave’s idea for the change to number 4.

Les: reconfirming my oft-stated belief that the world could use a few more Christians like him.

Without sounding like I’m pissing in your pocket, I agree. 

If we could get more people to live for the joy of living and follow what seems like common sense, things would be a shit-ton better.  Rock on for this!

Commonsense AND desire for the common good. If these were the two greatest commandments, we’d have utopia

Here, let me piss in your pocket—er, demur just slightly.

“Common sense” usually (as Heinlein put it) isn’t.  If it were, it would be a lot more common.  Hence #1-2 ... not just accepting what you’ve been told and seeking to figure out the “sense” yourself.

“Living for the joy of living” sounds pretty keen—but can also be pretty selfish.  In some ways, it stands opposite “the common good.” I do believe that living in constant fear of (or even desire for) the Afterlife is misguided at best.  But #7 in a vacuum isn’t a good thing.  (Most of the above in a vacuum aren’t.)

“Desire for the common good” (on the flip side) also sounds nice—but has been used as an excuse for any number of authoritarian schemes.  If you accept their sincerity (a big if, to be certain), even Robertson and Falwell are seeking the common good by imposition of their religious beliefs.

I actually tend to go back to the “Greatest Commandments”—to love God with all one’s being and to love one’s neighbor as onesself.  The former can certainly lead to bad things, depending on the deity (or ideals or ideologies) one chooses to worship, but the latter (and its reexpression as the Golden Rule) provides an immediate, localized guideline that would, indeed, make life a lot better for everyone.

someone once told me we should have atheists on one side of the world, and christians on the other, so we both get to live the way we want without bothering each other, but i just thought, then we would probably have a world war, that would not work either i guess. maybe we should live on separate planets, or separate universes, now im dreaming.

Problem is, I’m not convinced that, even if you kept the groups apart, All Atheists could live together in peace; certainly All Christians seem to have been unable to.

Plus, of course, that leave about a bunch of other Theists.

Well, last week’s and tonight’s South Park episodes show us a world of atheists, and for an as yet undisclosed reason they fight and kill each other a good bit, and sentient sea otters too.

i guess your right, people still have many flaws besides what they beleive in. then you would still have other problems people would never agree on.

I’d switch #4 to ‘In the name of ideology’, to get it a bit broader, but apart that, fine work.

I like my formulation, if only because it’s too easy for people to say, “Well, it’s my *truth* vs. your *ideology* ...”

I have only three laws as a guide.

1) don’t hurt yourself
2) don’t hurt others
3) don’t be stupid

Number 4 is optional

If it feels good then do it, but revert to rules 1, 2 and 3.

If I need greater clarification, I keep the ORS and the Federal Code of Civil Procedures nearby along with the Ore BAR and National Bar rules on ethics.

That should about do it.

Don

I can’t help but feel that the other nine Commandments are undermined by #8. Although I classify myself as an atheist and hopefully an ethical one at that, ethical behaviour relies fundamentally on the desires and judgment of the individual as opposed the collective. Allowing the individual to judge what is fundamentally good, opens a jumbo sized can of worms. What my idea of a Personal Code of Ethics is and what is your’s may well be opposites. Unlikely I know; but possible.

I also think number 8 is a bit of an Achilles heel.  I’m probably an atheist by most definitions of God, but I suspect that there is an assumption by many entering this debate that science is the foundation of their atheism, and that there is a continuous boundary where science is pushing against religion and defeating it.  While, when science does meet and conflict with religion, it wins, I think there is a vast no-man’s land of assumptions that both sides are also constantly trying to lay claim to, neither admitting they are unsuccessful.  Religious people should take heart that at the core of science is a rule about humility, that science allows that it may overturn itself completeley given its own evidence.  I think the reason I think I’m an atheist is that most religions pushed at me assume that God is a conscious being.  I think consciousness is one of those concepts that alot is assumed about, and lies smack in the middle of the no-man’s land neither side can reach.  It is also the core assumption you think about in the Golden Rule.  I think when science finds a way to circumvent “objectivity” and finds some way of even beginning to look at conscousness, the science of consciousness will alter science itself, and whatever that theory looks like could easily have the potential to explain the Golden Rule, thus subsuming theism and atheism into one theory.  But all we have now is these two very different animals: science is unfortunately the study of reality, and religion is the historical vessel that holds the collective code of ethics.  If atheists strive to take that code of ethics away from the religious, they need to come up with something more scientific than “whatever you personally want” along with some good mechanics for generational transmission (i.e. a curriculum) to replace it with.  Science may not yet be up to that task, and so naturally families go with the traditions they know.  Atheists take heart, the current selection of religions (as well as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy) do a great job of teaching our kids to question authoritiy.

Didi, nicely said.
I too have a ‘problem’ with consciousness because, as you say, it “lies smack in the middle of the no-man’s land” between science and religion.
What is it and when, how and why did it evolve?
I suppose the ‘why’ doesn’t really matter as it infers there’s another raison d’être for human life other than just to continue the species.
The ‘when’ also matters little ... just trivia. Do we agree it was more than 6000 years ago. 
I suppose the ‘how’ could be just as easily explained as the 1 and 0 in computer language.
It was once switched off and then something caused it to be switched on.
I wonder if all living creatures have the capacity for consciousness.
So the ‘what is consciousness?’ is what we are left with.
I suppose one day it’ll be as easy to explain as electricity, magnetism and gravity.