Solved

What do you think about Atheist Ten commandments?

Posted on 2014-12-23
38
65 Views
Last Modified: 2015-02-01

What do you think about Atheist Ten Commandments, as listed here?


1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.

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.


__________________[resource]____________________
Why The Atheist Ten Commandments Fail Science, Philosophy, And Reason
http://www.inquisitr.com/1699241/why-the-atheist-ten-commandments-fail-science-philosophy-and-reason/ - December 23, 2014
0
Comment
Question by:SunBow
  • 8
  • 7
  • 7
  • +7
38 Comments
 
LVL 18

Assisted Solution

by:WaterStreet
WaterStreet earned 2 total points
ID: 40516076
Who commanded them?

Makes me wonder what the agnostic 10 Commandments would look like.  That would be more interesting. :-))
0
 
LVL 82

Assisted Solution

by:Dave Baldwin
Dave Baldwin earned 1 total points
ID: 40516094
Yakety yak.
0
 
LVL 84

Assisted Solution

by:ozo
ozo earned 1 total points
ID: 40516135
I wouldn't call them ten commandments.  A commandment is an imperative statement.  Some of those are declarative statements.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:tliotta
tliotta earned 5 total points
ID: 40517473
The article makes a number of mistakes.
Does this mean the viewpoints of antiteleological, antisupernaturalist, and pragmatic naturalism are ruled invalid by fiat?
Obviously not. There should be no way to jump to that from the referenced 'commandment'. The 'commandment' only asserts "most reliable". It doesn't assert infallibility, nor does it assert that reliability is impossible via other means.
...since they could potentially cut both ways.
As can some of Moses' 'commandments'.

Joshua and many others tend to ignore 'Thou shalt not kill'. David sure had trouble with coveting, yet his house was the foundation of the divine bloodline on Earth.  Some of the "warfare" under both Joshua and David (and others) was apparently unjustified, except that empire expansion via "warfare" might be somehow justified. Similar "warfare" has continued at least into the last century.

And who can say who "me" is in 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'? Is it Allah? Yahweh? Brahma? Other? Pick wrongly and you're on the wrong side of the 'commandment'.

The whole conceptual area of 'desecration' gets questionable when someone vandalizes church statuary or paintings. Destruction of 'graven images' and 'idols' seems effectively "commanded" when doing so triggers expressions of 'desecration'. So how could it be 'desecration'? Wouldn't the existence of the feeling of 'desecration' directly imply a violation of the 'images/idols' 'commandment'? Is it simply because the objects are not totally destroyed?

Granted, viewed from the perspective of "destruction of property", it becomes a criminal matter. But that's separate from the 'desecration' aspect that's expressed by church constituency. Perhaps they should instead express gratitude.

If thieves fully expect to be stolen from as much as they desire to steal, then who is to say better?
"Expect" to be stolen from is far from "want" to be stolen from. Besides, how is that different from interpreting the 'Golden Rule' in the same way? Criticizing the referenced 'commandment' with such reasoning is the same as criticizing the 'Golden Rule' in the same way.

For example, the idea that “society’s needs come before the individual’s needs” may sound reasonable at first... This logic does not conflict with the atheist Ten Commandments...

That whole section is a huge stretch and begs the question. Nowhere in it does it even attempt to show that such a world would be 'better' than what exists otherwise. And if it wouldn't be 'better', then it would in fact conflict. The article does somewhat acknowledge that by concluding it's "...a prospect that even pro-choice proponents may find unnerving." That pretty much has the article refuting a big section of itself.

Overall, the 'commandments' seem reasonable. Perfect? Not yet, but they might be a useful point in the possible evolution of some final set of living guidelines.

Tom
0
 
LVL 29

Assisted Solution

by:leonstryker
leonstryker earned 5 total points
ID: 40518552
My thoughts

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
The open-minded part sounds good, but I am not sure that being always willing to alter your beliefs part. Makes one sound like a flip-flopper.

2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
Yeah, I can go with that.

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
Sounds too much like: Have faith in what we are saying.

4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
Assuming they are of sound mind, ok. Although I would question the definition of "their body" in cases of pregnancy.

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
This one kind of assumes that God exists, which does not make sense for Atheists 10 Commandments.

6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
Yes, on the responsibility, but its impossible to be mindful of all the consequences. I would reword this one to make more sense.

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.
Obviously borrowed from the Bible. :)

8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
Do we?

9. There is no one right way to live.
Aren't your commandment specifying that there is?

10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
Define better.
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40520346
When we bring arguments pro/cons in analyzing the statements in the question, what is our reference used to judge wrong or good?
Is it the intention to compare them against the Biblical 10 commandments? Or against common sense defined by our present days? Then in what part of the world and what culture? And generally speaking under what circumstances should be those stalemates analyzed?
Let’s take the last one „10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. “
Definitely sounds good.
Let’s move through different references of good and bad and see the meaning behind.
During history were many situations when a social class rose against another, willing to bring a change in good. The intention was good. They believed in a better place, fighting with their life for that “better”. Sometimes one or two generations passed, but the history shown that was a mistake was not a better place and a new change was required.
„10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. “ Better for whom? In what way?
Such statement is too relative.
For example imagine our world in an exponential technological evolution while the consciousness, the morality degrades. Then, the horizon is the apocalyptic self-destruction.
Under such circumstances there is no chance to „10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. “
That leads to the next conclusion: the consciousness, the morality, ethics is first and only after that comes the rest of the rules.
And by the way, “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.” makes no sense as long as you do not define prior what natural, normal, common sense, bad and good is.
What would you say to put you in a close community of gay/sadomasochists?
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:tliotta
tliotta earned 5 total points
ID: 40524935
...what is our reference used to judge wrong or good?
The "reference" is the same as it's been since the concepts of "wrong" and "good (i.e., 'right')" first started to form in the earliest conscious minds. They are what we feel and believe them to be. I've never known anyone who couldn't feel the difference.

There certainly are many who can't. I just haven't met any that I know of. They're generally considered to be sociopathic. And there are also many who can tell the differences but choose to ignore them, usually for personal gain of some kind.

Our (U.S.A.) criminal legal system has significant foundations in this, both in assigning guilt/innocence and in giving punishments. In many criminal cases, determining the outcomes hinges on degrees of 'intent' and recognition of right and wrong.

Much of what has been codified into laws, as well as into various religious writings, has come out of what has been decided by various societies as being "wrong" or "good". Large majorities in societies began finding common ground in how individuals felt and believed, and the common ideas became codified.

Tom
0
 
LVL 25

Accepted Solution

by:
SStory earned 11 total points
ID: 40531527
All of this makes the false presupposition that people are basically good.  Jesus defined human nature better than anyone. It is fallen, naturally self-seeking.

>1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
I don't see many die-hard atheists who follow this rule.  In fact an incredible amount of evidence that should cause one to conclude there is an Intelligent Designer of this existence is ignore simply because the desired conclusion is undesirable to an atheist.

2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
Again, I don't see this being followed.  Macro evolution for example, is absurd, and yet proponents--mostly atheists--defend it tooth and nail, not by the former, but later reason of "wish to be true."

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
The scientific method has to be open and honest and willing to accept the results in an unskewed, unbiased approach to be reliable.  If the possibility of Intelligent Design or God is eliminated then the method used is biased and skewed and unreliable.

4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
Every person does have the right, but without God's restraining hand, and the influence of His truth, people ,due to sin, don't.

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
There is no definition of good apart from God. There is no law without a Law Giver.  If government is the giver of freedom, for example and pursuit  of happiness, then government can take that away.  Without God there would be chaos, anarchy, barbarism and worse.  Many at present who follow a false God, are proving this on the international scene.

6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.  Why?  What will the end result be?  If there is no judgement, and no God, why worry that much about it.

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.  (this is directly from Jesus's "golden rule"  I am amazed that atheists would use a law from a biblical source.  “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12 ESV)

8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
This is also a biblical teaching. However, I question how people with no God or belief in God and a general Darwinistic view of evolution which suggests "survival of the fittest" would care about anyone outside of themselves and the fittest, which would survive regardless.

9. There is no one right way to live.
This is an absolute which basically says "there are no absolutes." It is self contradictory.

10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
The question is how to do that.
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40536842
@SStory

>1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
I don't see many die-hard atheists who follow this rule.  In fact an incredible amount of evidence that should cause one to conclude there is an Intelligent Designer of this existence is ignore simply because the desired conclusion is undesirable to an atheist.
Spoken like a true creationist. It does not matter how much evidence there is for evolution, as long as you can come up with anything that has not yet been explained to your satisfaction, you can claim that creationism is the only answer.

Have a look at all the evidence and see if it will change your belief. Then give us some EVIDENCE for the existence of the designer, what he did or how he did it, and then ask us to change our mind. And, don't include claims that have long been debunked by science, like the impossibility of the blood-clotting sequence.

I might add that it is scientists who are willing to change their mind when new evidence comes in. They do that all the time. Creationists, on the other hand, like to completely ignore all evidence except what's in their holy book. And they then ignore all conflicts in that book. For instance, try to explain how Genesis a and 2 can both be correct. In what sequence were the animals, Adam and Eve created?

Note that I do not distinguish between creationism and ID. The idea that ID does not set out promote a Christian god is a lie promoted by fundamentalist Christians who call themselves IDers. Creationist publications in general are good at promoting lies. Some of their quote-mining is almost unbelievable. Some of it is so outrageous that it can only be either a blatant lie or outright stupidity.
0
 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40536979
Abandoned (14 Days)
= about time for closing comments
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40537286
Sometimes the scientists have their own doubts about the evidences found, about the interpretations and the explanations given, because everything starts  with a reference and you build knowledege on that reference, then you get understandings and make explanations more or less acceptable for your time.
Then comes a time for a change and the change may lead to unexpected opposite direction.
It was the case of scientists coming together with a strong will of being impartial and without any influence in their judgment, as scientific as possible, and after some years of studies they were astonished about their discoveries in the quest of unlocking the mysteries of life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8
Worth to watch before you make further comments about creationism and ID.
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40537528
Sorry viki2000, without at least some indication as to what this is about, I have very little desire to sit through a 1 hour video about ID. I have never seen anything but mistakes, lies and obfuscations from the IDers.

If you want me to take notice, tell me what I can expect from this. You might also start by answering some of the questions I asked in my post.

Here are some more questions:

How many scientific papers has ID published? And don't tell me there's a global conspiracy going on, on a par with the moon hoax.

Has ID been able to come up with any feature of life that has not been explained through evolution? If so, which feature?

When did the "designer" do his work? 6000 years ago, or over the course of the 4 billion year history of life?

Why did the designer create such weird things? Examples: our back-to-front retina; the monstrous life cycle of wasps that lay eggs in a paralysed caterpillar so the wasps grub acn eat it from the inside; etc, etc.
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40537594
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:SStory
SStory earned 11 total points
ID: 40537762
hdhondt,

"Genesis a and 2 can both be correct."  You will have to fix the typo for an answer to be possible.
Microevolution is a fact.  There are minute changes within a species, but not enough to become a new species which is Macroevolution. There is NO EVIDENCE for macroevolution. It is in fact absurd.  There are no monkeys in any zoos becoming human.  You'd think if true there would be transitions and you'd occasionally find a monkey that talked and became more human and said hey let me out of the zoo I'm a man now.  It has never happened. The cop out is "500 blue zillion gazillion years ago at a time that none of us could verify x an y banged together and Z came about and through the slow process we got here." Talk about requiring dogmatic faith is something.  There are no true transition fossils period.

There are however aquatic life on the walls of the highest mountains (see life) which backs up the world wide flood.  There are trenches in the bottom of the ocean. Until recently we couldn't prove that, but it was in the book of Job in the Bible. Which was written 1400-2000 years BC, long before submarines could withstand the pressure to verify it.  Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Job as well as many other facts.

BTW, the animals were created before man and before woman according to Genesis. Where to do you find confusion in that.  In Genesis we get a basic day by day layout and then a more detailed account of man, the center of greatest of God's creation.

Only the Bible truly describes the true nature of the human heart, tells our origin our plight, destiny, why things are the way they are and God's plan to redeem people and the earth and remove the curses brought by disobeying the government and laws of the King of the Universe and beyond.
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:SStory
SStory earned 11 total points
ID: 40537768
hdhondt,
"Why did the designer create such weird things?" Mainly because He wanted to.
Have you ever built something that someone ask you why you did it that way instead of another? The answer if usually because you wanted to and you liked it that way.   Part of the complexity and vastness of creation is meant to communicate to us the vastness and incredible knowledge of the Creator.
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40539889
@viki2000

The flagellum has been explained for years. It can be explained by a step-by-step evolutionary sequence. The flagellum is supposed to be based on the fibrils some bacteria use to inject poison into other cells. Of course, creationists never realise that science makes progress. They keep showing the same old material forever. That's why a lot of their quotes (and misquotes) are decades old. As you list Wikipedia as a reference, try this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
Also:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_01.html

@SStory

What is it with creationists and macro-evolution. They seem to have finally given up on claiming that evolution does not happen, but now you want to limit its scope> I suppose they next evolution on steroids to explain why all the current animals could evolve from the "kinds" that were carried in the ark. Weirdly enough, that hyper-evolution seems to only have run for a very short time; it's certainly stopped now!

As for macro-evolution, have a look at this link.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2929/does-the-theory-of-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/2931#2931
I'll attach the relevant image, in case you have trouble finding it.
Evolution explained
There are no monkeys in any zoos becoming human
When  are you creationists going to realise that no evolutionary scientist, from Darwin to the present day has ever said that's how evolution happens? Try reading some material apart from creationist literature. Humans and chimps are "equally far" evolved. Both evolved from an animal that lived about 6 million years ago. That animal no longer lives now. Evolution also very rarely repeats itself. So if the human/chimp ancestor were alive today, it might not give rise to either humans or chimps - the circumstances are different now.

Please explain what happened to evolution after the flood, so that the biblical "kinds" could evolve at super speed. After all, cats must have become lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, lynxes, bobcats, etc. Ditto for horses, dogs, etc. Why are they not evolving extremely rapidly at present? Or do you propose that Noah had pairs (or 7s) of all 30 million or so species on board?

There are no true transition fossils period
What about the ape to human sequence? What about horse evolution? What about whales? What about the evolution from fish to four legged animal? Please explain what all those fossils are about.

I'll repeat what I've said before: creationism and ID have never produced any scientific advance. All they can do is to say "but has science explained this (eye, wing, flagellum) yet? You haven't? Then god must have done it, because otherwise we can't explain it"
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40539952
Form your links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html#.VK-7Hnsx6Qk
1http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_01.html
2
You do not realize that there is still a debate among scientists around the problem. It is nothing clear explained. There are only suppositions. Some believe some arguments and other cannot accept them because are not clear enough, contrary are creating confusion and suspicion, they are not worldwide accepted clear arguments behind. It looks like still walking in the dark.
I am amazed that people still believe that such complexity at small scale will happen random.
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:SStory
SStory earned 11 total points
ID: 40540968
hdhondt:
>Please explain what happened to evolution after the flood, so that the biblical "kinds" could evolve at super speed. After >all, cats must have become lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, lynxes, bobcats, etc. Ditto for horses, dogs, etc. Why are they >not evolving extremely rapidly at present? Or do you propose that Noah had pairs (or 7s) of all 30 million or so species on >board?

I see no need for super fast evolution for a cat to become something else.  The ark was plenty big.  Now cats could remain cats and vary easily.  The animals came to the ark as God told them. Perhaps they came as babies and since the Creator was in charge there would be no need of worrying of the lion eating anything. It just wouldn't .  So there was plenty of room.

Where is the missing link?  You can't really find it.  You find people who probably a few thousand years ago were buried by the flood or fell in a tar pit. Dating ancient things past the 1000s has proven to be a joke.  A lot of word would easily heavily bury the dead that didn't survive.  Don't see any monkeys or other animals that became man. All men discovered are still men (still in the same species). No macro-evolution.
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40541756
@Viki2000

Of course scientists still debate the problem - they always do that, to refine their understanding, or to prove a new idea. However, it has been largely explained how it can happen. We do not know how it really happened, as that is some minute detail from the past. But it is possible. Scientists have shown how some of those 240 distinct and essential proteins are used for other purposes - hence it is not necessary to assume they all "happened" at once. As for the "it might be possible" you highlighted, they are saying that, once the scaffolding is removed, it is no longer possible to see it - but it was there.

@SStory

I see no need for super fast evolution
So you do agree that the ark was big enough for something like 30 million species. How large did the bible say it was??? If the ark did not contain everyone of those 30 million species, please explain where they came from. If your explanation includes "biblical kinds" and "evolution", please explain how a few "kinds" would evolve into millions.

since the Creator was in charge there would be no need of worrying of the lion eating anything
So the creator piles miracle upon miracle just to make his miraculous flood work. Maybe all the animals were in cold storage - the creator could do it easily! Why could he not just kill everything except Noah and the animals, without invoking miraculous floods and additional miracles?

Don't see any monkeys or other animals that became man
Did you read my comment? I'll repeat: THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE WAY EVOLUTION WORKS. Try learning the basics about a subject before you talk about it.

Where is the missing link
What about this sequence: Ardipithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens? I'm not saying the sequence is necessarily the one that lead to us (unlike creationists, scientists do revise their ideas when new evidence emerges), but it sure shows one hell of a lot of "missing links".

Dating ancient things past the 1000s
What about tree-ring counts, going back 10,000 years, and the counts of ice layers in Antarctica and Greenland? They go back well over 100,000 years - and they match radiometric dating which you consider unreliable. Or did the flood somehow deposit 100,000 layers of ice?
0
Threat Intelligence Starter Resources

Integrating threat intelligence can be challenging, and not all companies are ready. These resources can help you build awareness and prepare for defense.

 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40541849
WaterStreet > wonder what the agnostic 10 would look like

:-)

ozo> Some of those are declarative statements.

Not so different, as none of the original three 10's are 'commands', they were to be part of contractual agreement - covenant. (distinguished from other 100s do's, don'ts) retained in ark.

tliotta> others tend to ignore 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Mistranslated, it was 'do not murder'
Moses was a murderer. Other tale tellers 'stretch' story for entertainment value.

>  David sure had trouble with ..

er, were they any he did not have trouble with?

leonstryker > This one kind of assumes that God exists, which does not make sense for Atheists 10 Commandments.

,you've identified agnostic one for WaterStreet?

> Do we?

- needs a vote (or recount)?

viki2000 > Let’s take the last one „10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. “ Definitely sounds good.

Sounds good, at least since we do not know own longevity, each day of improvement is to own benefit - if we wake up next day. .... don't wait too long

> Think about their perspective

s/x

tliotta >  in giving punishments

<ugh> I do not like that word. Prefer: "do crime/do time" & "eye for eye" (unembellished balance, no more 'extras' on what is due) or "corrections"

SStory > 6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.  Why?  What will the end result be?  If there is no judgement, and no God, why worry that much about it.

For one, you might not 'get away with it' (re: "I fought the law and the law won"). For another, pollute the water you drink and you may not get chance to pollute (or drink) any longer.

Some beliefs stretch this. Go save someone's life. They become endebted to you for life. Then as your 'subject', you 'get to' take care of them for life. Oh.

hdhondt > Note that I do not distinguish between creationism and ID

I think I do, in that ID can sound good (better) as sound bite or brief extract, but the more words they use the worse their argument becomes --- I feel same about the ID detractors, where more words used, less sense made, more nonsense. Like their arguments written by opposition. They cancel each other out, leaving <IDGI> - time for a drink.      

viki2000 > with a strong will of being impartial and without any influence in their judgment, as scientific as possible

- reminds me of the gambit to rate the sayings of Jesus using votes for reliability. I been meaning to try revisit that.

hdhondt > When did the "designer" do his work? 6000 years ago, or over the course of the 4 billion year history of life?

Simple answer ought to be: before the beginning. They seem incapable of that suggestion. Go figure.

> Why did the designer create such weird things?

er, how about people with six toes, or six fingers, or worse? Science has it that they were going to be twins, but one had some extra growth factor, became like cannibal in womb. Upon learning that, the affected seem to become better adjusted, feeling that their long departed kin is not really gone, but remains part of them.

viki2000>
SStory> There is NO EVIDENCE for macroevolution. It is in fact absurd.  

Not really. There's idea that it is not steady/slow, but rare/fast. Think you'll see comet landing, or ice age?

hdhondt >  I suppose they next evolution on steroids to explain why all the current animals could evolve from the "kinds" that were carried in the ark. Weirdly

er, how'd they get to Australia?

> because otherwise we can't explain it"

good entry point for magician, magic, soothsayer, miracle

viki2000 > levitation

Disbelief in levitation (or belief) does not disprove the misunderstood

SStory > Where is the missing link?  You can't really find it.  

& lets hope none are found, at least not too soon. It can be nice to be different than others. Have yet to see Monkey teach algebra, play MLB, go caroling, grab arms to join terrorist.
 koalahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial
Marsupials are an infraclass of mammals living primarily in Australasia and the Americas. A distinctive characteristic, common to most species, is that the young are carried in a pouch.

[~15? ~3ea?]

[No summary .. yet, this seems to have some level of longevity. So, with several recent replies to replies (discussion) after 'last call', leaving it open a little longer whilst trying to come up with another ... discussion. Or would any want a 'Part 2' restart?]
0
 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40541902
[aha, typing too slow, another pops up in interim, thread has life of own. While any can contribute after closure, removing from 'open' deters fresh blood joining in]

hdhondt > What about tree-ring counts, going back 10,000 years, and

So what? An all-powerful-god, being omnipotent, can have given us a kick-start, say at year 0, beginning us with a universe with a historical record already built in to design. ID-ers tend to not like losing out on millenia to believe in that are not experienced, whilst big- bangers prefer the bigger numbers of longevity.

> Maybe all the animals were in cold storage

- or placed in test tube, moved to petri
- and teleported
- cloned?
- nephilim?
- unicorn?
- Behemoth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum
The opossums, also known by their scientific name Didelphimorphia /daɪˌdɛlfɨˈmɔrfiə/), make up the largest order of marsupials in the Western Hemisphere
..
When threatened or harmed, they will "play possum", mimicking the appearance and smell of a sick or dead animal...The animal will typically regain consciousness after a period of between 40 minutes and 4 hours
..Adult opossums do not hang from trees by their tails, as sometimes depicted, though babies may dangle temporarily.
opossum by their tail
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:SStory
SStory earned 11 total points
ID: 40542068
hdhondt,

Due to the desire of athiests to not have a God to give an account to, they need a way to try to explain away His existinence.  It is futile attempt.  God didn't create an immature earth, but a mature one. It didn't take millions or billions of years to do.

I do have a thought on all of the ice and so called Ice Age. This is a theory mind you.  Perhaps God, after all of the flood, got rid of the water by blowing some of it with strong winds into heaps and freezing it up north and south where no one would care or be affected by it and that it how glaciers came about--in a brief time period. People who were killed in the flood and animals were frozen in this ice and didn't live millions of years ago, but really only 1000s. The presuppositions are wrong. They say, no God, no miracles, must have taken a long time to build up this much ice.  Grand Canyon: they say, no God, no miracles, no creation, must have taken a long time for soil erosion to eat this big of a whole...maybe an asteroid or two?  What if God just created the Grand Canyon that way in the beginning because He wanted something awe inspiring to demonstrate His glory to mankind?
0
 
LVL 25

Assisted Solution

by:SStory
SStory earned 11 total points
ID: 40542085
I think the truth was shown in Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-debate-has-changed/
Read the above and you will know my thoughts on it.
Basically both sides have the same evidence/facts. Evidence and facts are not the issue. The issue is a world view of the Naturalism (a religion or world view) and Creationism(a world view based on the Bible).  Whatever either side accepts will be based upon their world view so at issue is do you accept the Bible as truth? Do you accept that there is a Creator and thus someone to give an account to? Are you willing to bet your eternity and the risk of eternal damnation that you are correct?  Those are the issues that face all mankind on the subject.  Nothing said concerning piles of facts will ever change either of our minds.  It is as Ham said, a spiritual issue.  Reading Romans 1 will explain where I think the issue lies.  Men having rejected the glory and knowledge of God were "given over to a reprobate mind...."
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40542952
@Sunbow

An all-powerful-god, being omnipotent, can have given us a kick-start
Indeed, and maybe the universe was created, not 6000 years ago as SStory would have it, but last week, or 20 microseconds ago, but with a 13.8 billion year history. To a creationist, nothing is too unbelievable.

@SStory

They say, no God, no miracles
Exactly. I don't believe in miracles or god. You do believe in god and you keep piling miracle upon miracle to make his miracles work.

Evidence and facts are not the issue
Indeed, the issue is the flat refusal of creationists to accept facts. Instead, you try to bend reality so it fits your book, and bugger the facts.

Are you willing to bet your eternity
Here we go again with Pascal's wager. Pascal is right, except for one mistake: what if his (or your) god is not the correct one. In that case you're still damned forever. Just imagine what will happen to you if Allah is the real god. Oh, and muslims also have books (including the bible) that are the "truth".

It is as Ham said, a spiritual issue.
There's nothing spiritual about radiometric dating, tree ring counts, etc. Those are just fact, regardless of whether you spirit likes them or not. I'll say it again: most good Christians accept evolution. They might prefer it if the world was different, but they know that the facts are undeniable. Catholics remember Galileo - or do you also think the sun goes around the earth?

I'll repeat something I've said before in a comment to a different question: if the universe is not billions of years old, then quantum mechanics and general relativity (the most accurate theories ever) are wrong. If they are, then the computer you use could not possibly work. To help you think about I'll attachThe problems with a 6000 year old earth a chart.
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40542990
Making a chart means nothing with baking up the statements.
You made me curios.
If I take for example "If the Earth is 6000 year old" then "the speed of light cannot possibly be a constant limit", how do you relate/prove that? What is the relation?
0
 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40543103
SStory > the truth was shown in Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate:

- RU sure of that? I see nothing there I'd hang my hat on.

hdhondt > maybe the universe was created, not 6000 years,  ...  but with a 13.8 billion year history.

- or maybe last night before we 'woke up' created
- or may be we're in induced dream state off in a pod
- or maybe, the history is 200 trillion years old
- or maybe -- has always been

viki2000 > "the speed of light cannot possibly be a constant limit"

- It is not a constant, being subject to "medium is massage"
- While Dirty Harry reminds us to beware our limitations, a continuation can be about presumptions of alternatives regarding 'limits', not only rural vs urban vs school
0
 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40543122
Point of order:
as we are a bit astray of topic "What do you think about Atheist Ten commandments?",
yet having more liveliness than some other Q's
What are your thoughts on moving on together to a 'part 2',  if so how to title that... how about a:

"what do you think of creationism?"

I can probably post it later today, if all care to continue.
and soliciting Help in phrasing question.
-as asker, I should bear more the hat of facilitator than that of participant
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40543452
@SunBow

We are indeed way off topic. Please close this whenever you feel like it.

@viki2000
If I take for example "If the Earth is 6000 year old" then "the speed of light cannot possibly be a constant limit"
If it wasn't then we would not be able to see things that are more than 6000 lightyears away. But, we can see galaxies that are more than 13 billion lightyears away. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) comes from even further away. The only way to explain these measurements with a 6000 year old earth is if the speed of light changed by many orders of magnitude, but stopped changing at about the time of the first astronomical measurements, say around 4000 years ago.
0
 
LVL 38

Assisted Solution

by:Herman D'Hondt
Herman D'Hondt earned 10 total points
ID: 40543486
@SunBow
Marsupials are an infraclass of mammals
I hope you didn't mean they are "less evolved" than us placental mammals. They are equally far evolved as us, snakes, cockroaches, oak trees and all other creatures. All of us have 4 billion years of evolution behind us. We humans have just evolved in another direction, which happened to lead to intelligence - except perhaps in those who believe that ID can offer any insights ;-)
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:bergertime
bergertime earned 7 total points
ID: 40544717
An atheist should have only one rule

1.  Do what is in my best interest.
2....

That's it, anything else is silly drivel.  Or to be direct...weak.

Leave the world a better place than when I found it.  Why?  That's just plan silly.  Why would I even consider wasting MY time, unless it was in my best interest?

Strive to understand what is true, not what you want to believe is true?  Again just silly.  Believe what ever you want, it doesn't matter.  I believe every time I fart that a unicorn gets it's horn.  OMG, I'm a bad atheist!!

What I truly don't understand is why someone would become an Atheist, yet shackle themselves with silly rules.  Being an atheist is true freedom to do as you please....embrace it.
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40544876
I hope you are joking.
The "true freedom" that you speak about, without any rules, only to do what is in your best interest, that is defined with only one word: CHAOS.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:bergertime
bergertime earned 7 total points
ID: 40545006
We have to follow some social norms, it's in our best interest.  But there is no reason to chain our selves to moralistic rules.  What?  Am I going to be a bad atheist?  

1. Live like you want.

 2. Believe what makes you happy.

 4. Every person has the right to control over their body and what they value.

 5. Religion is not necessary to be a person or to live a full life.

 6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that they can impact you.

 7. Treat others in a way to get what would make your life more fulfilling.

 8. We have the no responsibility to others, including future generations.

9. There is one right way to live, that which brings you the most happiness, because when it's over, it's over.  Only darkness,

 10. Live without fear of people who try to force you to do something that's not in your own best interest because it's JUST the right thing to do.
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40545042
When you make such statements then you did not pass the age of 30.
"1. Live like you want. " and " 7. Treat others in a way to get what would make your life more fulfilling."
Then don't wonder that one of the closest people around you will pretend to be a trust person only to get what you have, because you just defined a set of rules which let the open doors to immorality that you reject, but in fact you need it when is in your interest.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:bergertime
bergertime earned 7 total points
ID: 40545167
See, that's just it.  Everyone is pretending, except me.  An atheist with moral?  Is there even such a thing.  At least Christians follow a set of morals where there is punishment.

Trust doesn't equal morals.  Are you a Christian?  Then take all your money out of the bank and leave it in an envelope at your church parking lot.  I'm sure it will be returned.  Your an atheist with morals?  Leave the same envelope wherever moralistic atheist get together.  Don't leave it with me cause I'm the only honest one here.  Three sets of beliefs, yet only one true to them, at least in most cases, agreed a small percentage would return the money.
0
 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:viki2000
viki2000 earned 8 total points
ID: 40548419
“An atheist with moral?  Is there even such a thing.”
I thought there is. There are many people who do not believe in God, they reject the idea in any way because are convinced of other things which guide them in opposite direction. But for sure among them are sincere people and many of them are very educated persons knowing about the social moral rules and follow them. Up to what extent I cannot say. But I can say that are similar religious people claiming moral rules and they do not follow them as it supposed to do. In fact, I am convinced that are all kind of combinations/possibilities regarding the morality, declared or not, for atheist and religious people. The history proves that.
Now, if you want to speak about statistics, then for personal reasons, so not objective, because I did not follow any studies, I incline to believe that religious people tend and should be more morals than atheists, but that’s not a general rule and I have seen enough exceptions.
“Trust doesn't equal morals.”
The caught bandit in prison trusts, limited trust, the free fellows who split the money and wait for him to get his share.
That would an example of trust without morals. But you see, even among bad guys there are rules.
When you come and state: “I am an atheist and I feel free when I follow no rules, I do not want any boundaries”, then you speak about chaos. That’s in fact as Brownian motion leading to higher entropy.

And there is a contradiction in your statements: you want no rules, but you defined some.
It is as you would say: the principle that guides me is that I am against principles.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:tliotta
tliotta earned 5 total points
ID: 40552519
Are you willing to bet your eternity...

Yep, since there is no eternity for an individual, and essentially no one could stand having to live for an eternity anyway. (It's near certain that those who claim to want it have effectively no grasp of the magnitude of 'eternity'.)

Worse, since we live only once and a lifetime is short enough as it is, it's a pity that so many are unable to appreciate how valuable our lives are and to keep their attention on the life they have because they keep themselves always looking towards some mythical paradise. So many wasted lifetimes.

An overarching belief in an 'afterlife' implies that this life is less important. It's an opening to every wrong that comes out of organized religions. It leads to social structures that attempt to force conformity to "Our Right Way To Live, And We Have The Moral Authority To Make You Do It In Order To Save Your Soul".

Tom
0
 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40581169
[Abandoned (14 Days)]
0
 
LVL 24

Author Comment

by:SunBow
ID: 40582226
Closing now

 9 Participating Experts
50 Points
37 Comments

Hmm, were 'best' to get 10 pt, that's about 1 for each comment (maintaining flow).
(how to..) Avg 5 then for top three, based... striking 10 bullets.
& those discussing (opinions) ought also get to five ea (I didn't count)
Lending to a small step for getting into a new month

Hard to form more a conclusion than there remain those who can sustain discussion on religion (not just philosophy) topic
Time to move on to other questions
0

Featured Post

Highfive + Dolby Voice = No More Audio Complaints!

Poor audio quality is one of the top reasons people don’t use video conferencing. Get the crispest, clearest audio powered by Dolby Voice in every meeting. Highfive and Dolby Voice deliver the best video conferencing and audio experience for every meeting and every room.

Join & Write a Comment

Experts-Exchange is designed for questions and answers with the common scenario being that nearly all responses are directed to the Asker.   But in some EE zones, it is common to have a number of different people discussing back and forth.  In such …
The Qur’an Revelation There has been a lot of public focus and debate on Islam in various media in recent years. This article aims to clarify some elements towards the understanding of the primary source of Islamic belief, the Qur’an. Defini…
Internet Business Fax to Email Made Easy - With eFax Corporate (http://www.enterprise.efax.com), you'll receive a dedicated online fax number, which is used the same way as a typical analog fax number. You'll receive secure faxes in your email, fr…
Access reports are powerful and flexible. Learn how to create a query and then a grouped report using the wizard. Modify the report design after the wizard is done to make it look better. There will be another video to explain how to put the final p…

762 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

22 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now