"Ten people collectively won the Rethink Prize, which was granted for their efforts in re-imagining the traditional Ten Commandments; they will share a collective $10,000 prize.Bayer and Figdor organized this contest around their book, “Atheist Mind, Human Heart,” which itself contained such things which we discussed elsewhere, some time back. So let's see how the contest winners' commandments hold up to logical scrutiny.
Below, see their new set of commandments:
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.These were chosen among 2,800 total submissions. What do you think of them? You can read the original Ten Commandments here."
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10.Leave the world a better place than you found it.
"1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence."Atheists reject all but material evidence; so there is no evidence possible which will change their minds, because their minds are set on a logical fallacy: Category Error.
"2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true."This places truth squarely into the probabilistic zone, where Atheists can use Baye's Theorem to manipulate "truth" according to their biases. They know that there is no truth except that which they make up. So they make "making it up" into a commandment. The non-specificity of this statement allows anything to be calculated as "probably" true, and certain Atheists do this all the time.
"3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world."This is not a commandment at all, unless it commands Atheists to be Scientistic Materialists (and that is not clear from the assertion being made). Atheists are Scientistic by ideology, and their Scientism is stuck in Newtonian space. The idea of reality being nothing but probability fields all the way down is not useful to them in their Materialism, especially the part about the necessity of external conscious intervention to collapse the equation and produce anything resembling the special case of Newton's physics. Besides, this is not a commandment at all.
"4. Every person has the right to control over their body."Also not a commandment, this is a phony "right", which will be interpreted to include only those who are "allowed" to be persons. It is an Atheist pass-time to create new definitions of personhood, depending upon the situation. This does not apply, of course, to anyone declared not-a-person by Atheists.
"5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life."Another non-commandment; it is an assertion with no definition of "good". Good is what every Atheist defines it to be, for his own purpose, at the moment called "now". This could apply to Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot, or Castro quite well.
"6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them."A weak attempt at a commandment, which fails to instruct as to what sort of consequences are Good and which are Bad, or even consequences for whom. That's because there is no Good/Bad judgment possible under the Atheist Void of moral emptiness. As Nietzsche demonstrated, there can be no good or evil under Atheism. So this "commandment" is without meaning, except possibly as a "don't get caught by the law" caveat.
"8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations."And how should we consider them? As impediments to happiness requiring abortion? As Oppressors of our Victimhood Classes to be suppressed and removed? This bogus "commandment" also is without meaning, and is manipulable in every conceivable dimension.
"9. There is no one right way to live."Now we are getting somewhere, even though this is not a commandment. This one is an assertion that ANYTHING GOES.
"10.Leave the world a better place than you found it."Would the world be a better place without certain categories of people in it? Is that what we have here? Being non-specific as to what a "better place" would entail, leaves this commandment just as open to subjective interpretation as is possible. For the totalitarian AtheoLeft, a better world would be one where they, the elites, dominate and control the lives of the perpetual Victimhood herd, which is constantly being equalized and admonished to tolerate the dictates of the elites.
(As always, see the Humanist Manifesto I).
Let's summarize. Only a few of the "commandments" are actually commandments at all; the rest are assertions of one type or another. Those which actually are commandments are so non-specific as to cover any interpretation which might be put on them, thus allowing any type of behavior whatsoever.
Commandment number 9, (not actually a commandment) says it all: ANYTHING GOES in Atheist-land.
However, since Atheist thinking and behavior is not subject to logical scrutiny, at least not by Atheists, they are still without any restrictions and for them, ANYTHING GOES is the winning Atheist principle of moral conduct..
9 comments:
"3.The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world."
This statement presupposes the natural/material world is all there is.A clever way of begging the question.
"4.Every person has the right to control over their body."
A bit vague,stating the obvious and also a subtle encouragement towards sexual perversity.
"5.God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life."
-A life "fully lived" without God's nature as a benchmark necessarily leads towards hedonism and excessive materialism.
-A "meaningful life" where each individual gets to make up his or her own meaning refutes the purpose of meaning,which is to establish an objective explanation and value to a concept.Establishing different meanings to a concept will lead to a contradictory meaning of that concept.
"6.Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them."
Unless death saves you from having to take responsibility.Also,what exactly in metaphysical naturalism dictates that one must account for ones actions?
"8.We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations."
This contradicts one of the Atheists's sacred tenets of Evolution,namely self-preservation/survival of the fittest and the selfish gene (promoting your own survival without considering the group or species).
"9.There is no one right way to live."
Self-refuting.Implying there are more valid paths in life than Philosophical Materialism.
"10.Leave the world a better place than you found it."
A better place in Atheist parlance refers to a world without God,which is what all Atheists strive for.Then they can finally implement all their bizarre practices without the religious breathing down their necks
As Stan noted, #9 is merely another expression of "Do as thou wilt; that shall be the whole of the Law".
As for the rest, self-contradiction never bothers Atheists OR Leftists, since words and ideas are merely tools to obtain and maintain the fantasy existence towards which they are always striving.
I could understand someone not agreeing with me worshipping a Sky Daddy. But to replace that with worship of myself? I know exactly what I am. It is not material suitable for worship.
Well said, Phoenix.
The scientific method may well be most reliable of understanding the natural world, too bad scientismists rely more on a prior assumptions, extrapolations of limited data, and denial of anything that doesn't fit the established narrative, than they do the scientific method.
I especially like your deconstruction of number five. How does an animal lead a life of meaning? Atheists are duplicitous in their theories, but wanting to deny divinity but wax philosophical about meaning. We can see it when the mask slips and Atheists, reaching the end of their logical rope, start talking of euthanasia and infanticide. Ultimately they start talking blather about lack of agency and their entire premise of meaningful falls apart under the weight of their own precepts.
In number 6 they are missing a key word. Legal. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and realize you must take legal responsibility for them.
If I murder someone and get away with it, how will I be held responsible for it? Yet millions of Christians have been killed for merely being Christian and breaking the laws of the Atheists governments under which they toil. What actions are these Christians being held responsible for? Many a dictator has died in their bed having never taken an iota of responsibility for their actions.
Number nine is laughable. There is no right way to live? Is that right, is that way the militant Atheists are breaking the crosses off war memorials, tearing down nativity scenes, suing schools, and harassing courthouse, because their is no right way to live? But lets take it a step further. If I kill my neighbor and take his positions, would the atheist defend this as a valid way to live.
Is it because the law says it is wrong? Haven't Atheists and the militants for freedom from morality been working tireless for a century to change the laws from what they viewed as the wrong way to live, i.e. a culture heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian principles, to what they view as the right way to live, i.e. freedom from those principles?
Steven
I hear you and I'm beginning to notice a pattern of Atheist claims that are deliberately weak and vague,allowing themselves much wiggle room should they be forced to defend them.Their assertions are so broad it could mean anything,everything,not what it's intended to mean but more often than not,it means nothing.
=======
Rikalonius
How does an animal lead a life of meaning?
It's funny you mention that because I've come across quite a few Atheists recently who appeal to animal behavior (usually bonobo chimps) for their moral principles.The argument goes something like this:Because homosexual practices has been observed amongst chimps therefore it's natural for human beings to engage in them too.
Couple of problems here:Mother chimps sometimes allow her scared sons to mount her as a means to calm them.Not to mention infanticide and a host of other bizzare yet natural practices of these "role model" chimps.So it's up to the Atheist to demonstrate where the line gets drawn,why it's drawn there and who gave him that authority?
phoenix,
That brings up an interesting point. If bonobo behavior justifies homosexuality, then bonobo behavior justifies human acceptance of ALL bonobo actions. Since bonobos have no written laws, no principle of guidance for behaviors, then so should humans have the same anarchic culture.
Here's one behavior that jumps out:
"While males rarely share food, when subordinate females beg for food from dominant males, the likelihood that the male will share is greatly increased if they first copulate (Blount 1990). It is important to remember, though, that sex is primarily a function of stress reduction at feeding sites not as currency for food (Blount 1990). "
Obviously we should have plenty of sex at restaurants and fast food joints, as well as hot dog stands.
And this explains feminism:
" Females that have strong bonds keep males away from food and often attack males, biting off their fingers and toes (de Waal 1997). If a male is to achieve alpha status in a bonobo group, he must be accepted by the alpha female. "
If one wants to be an alpha, he must suck up to the girls. It's the bonobo way.
Civilization which refers to its behaviors as justified by animal behaviors is not civilized; it is regressive to animal anarchy.
I've had similar conversations with Atheists. My example was a roaming Lion that defeats a pride's protector male and then murders an cubs left behind in order to sire his own pride. That's Leftism on parade right there. So I'll ask them if we should emulate that natural behavior.
What atheists constantly struggle to reconcile, in an vain attempt to marry anarchy with enforceable rules that protect their proclivities, is that if a person desires to commit and act, doesn't that make it natural. How can you tell me it is wrong to want to do something that I have a desire to do without offering me a higher form of morality by which to be guided?
They are a confused bunch. Some suffer more cognitive dissonance than others, but rarely does that impede their thoughts for long.
Rikalonius,
Interesting. I read an article just yesterday which alluded to the same sort of paradox in feminism. Feminists are anti-essentialist, meaning that they claim that females have no essence, especially not the feminine essence falsely given to them by men. The false feminine essence must be denied and shed so that the all new female essence can be created anew in each female. Females can then compete with males on the same plane, and will eventually outcompete men. Except that feminists also claim that females need protection - must have protection - from males, all of whom are rapists... protection by the government if necessary.
So they tacitly accept that females do have an essence - weakness, while also claiming that females do not have an essence. And males have a natural essence (rapists), but females do not.
It seems apes can give us a better understanding into the mind of an Atheist.I've been reluctant to call Atheists subhuman-creatures but now it doesn't seem that much of a stretch.
Dawkins said it best:'We admit that we are like apes,but we seldom realize that we are apes.'
Post a Comment