Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ten Atheist "Commandments"

Rate this topic


Prometheus98876
 Share

Recommended Posts

I realize that the whole idea of "Commandments" is kind of inapproraite, but I found some Commandments that make a lot more sense then the ones in the Bible. So if we had to have any, these are the sort I would like. I thought you guys might find the following somewhat amusing/interesting.

Click here, some right at the top. Go the bottom of the page for some more, though some of them arent so good.

Great for those that feel they have to obey Commadments, or if you feel like correcting some of the crappier ones next time it comes up. You can say something like this:

"Oh yeah? Well MY Eight Commandment is: Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics :P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that the whole idea of "Commandments" is kind of inapproraite, but I found some Commandments that make a lot more sense then the ones in the Bible. So if we had to have any, these are the sort I would like. I thought you guys might find the following somewhat amusing/interesting.

Click here, some right at the top. Go the bottom of the page for some more, though some of them arent so good.

Great for those that feel they have to obey Commadments, or if you feel like correcting some of the crappier ones next time it comes up. You can say something like this:

"Oh yeah? Well MY Eight Commandment is: Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics :P.

Commanding atheists and philosophical skeptics is like herding cats. An exercise in futility.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At best:

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

I just looked at those "'commandments'" and some of them are rather...well...

"Thou shalt educate ..." ? :o

"Thou shalt leave valuable contributions for the future of mankind" ?

It's all summed up for me in #10 "Thou SHALT support those that follow these commandments."

I wouldn't support ANY of those 10 commandments, commandments qua commandments, nor the creator of those or any such commandments.

Number #3 "Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities commited in the name of God?" Apparently the writer of them doesn't "obey" that one, or else these wouldn't have even been written... :P

Oh man do I regret clicking on your link...

I realize that the whole idea of "Commandments" is kind of inapproraite,

Kind of?

but I found some Commandments that make a lot more sense then the ones in the Bible. So if we had to have any, these are the sort I would like. I thought you guys might find the following somewhat amusing/interesting.

(bold emphasis mine)

I definately wouldn't share in your "bold" opinion of the sort you like, and I find them neither "somewhat amusing/interesting"...

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, inapproriate in the religous sense. I suppose one could view more reasonable things such as stuff in Galts speech as Commandments.

Yes, kind of. I was being a little tongue in cheek, there, but of course its hard to tell that this time :o z> Opps.

Of course your not meant to actually taket the Commandments seriously as something to obey, I think thats kind of the whole point. I never said I WOULD actually live my live by them, merely that if I had to obey some, these are at least better than others.

Also I never expressed anything in bold, or boldly, so dont imply that I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Capitalism Forever. I like your Commandment. Lets replace them all with that one, or this one:

"Thou shalt not be foolish enough to do something just because a Commandment tells you to"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reported my post so as to clarify the bold emphasis in your quote was mine.

Thank you. I was hoping that you did not mean to make that implication, did not seem that much like you from what I have seen of you on the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I was hoping that you did not mean to make that implication, did not seem that much like you from what I have seen of you on the forum.

I changed only part of the implication though, the part that needed changed. As for the rest of it, I can imply it, did, and will explicate: that's a bold opinion of the sort you like. That's my opinion.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Capitalism Forever. I like your Commandment. Lets replace them all with that one, or this one:

"Thou shalt not be foolish enough to do something just because a Commandment tells you to"

How about: "Thou shalt not follow commandments on blind faith."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's mentioned the basic problem with moral "commandments:"

Morality is an if-then proposition. IF you want to achieve certain values, THEN you must observe certain principles. There is no purpose to your existence besides the one you choose, and no deities to obey or appease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's mentioned the basic problem with moral "commandments:"

Morality is an if-then proposition.

There is an implied "if" behind all religious commandments; you have hinted to it in your very next sentence:

There is no purpose to your existence besides the one you choose, and deities to obey or appease.

(emphasis added)

"IF you want to go to Heaven (rather than Hell), THEN thou shalt..."

It took Kant to come up with a commandment that asks you to do something just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but that is not an if-then in the sense we mean it, is it? Traditional morality says, "If you want to achieve <x> then you must obey rule <y> or do action <z>", whereas Objectivist ethics say, "If this is what is happening (in reality), then you must act in accordance with that". Whilst I agree with Greedy Capitalist that value achievement is inherent in this, we have to remember that that value achievements implies, "With regards to reality, and the fact that I am a human", which is the vital element missing from traditional morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"With regards to reality, and the fact that I am a human", which is the vital element missing from traditional morality.

A Christian would tell you that Heaven and Hell are a part of reality, and the fact that you are a human means that you're going to one of them. The appeal to causality is there in both their view and ours; the difference is "just" that they refer to an arbitrary, dreamed-up conception of causality while we refer to objective fact.

In their primacy-of-consciousness worldview, it is God's whims and commandments that have ultimate causal efficacy, while we, recognizing the primacy of existence, identify causality in the natures of the concrete entities that exist. This is the premise that differs. The premise that man's goal is to survive and that the purpose of ethics is to guide him in enacting the causes that will make him survive is shared by non-Calvinist Christianity and Objectivism. Kant, however, decrees that all considerations of causality should be removed from ethics and that morality consists of not ever acting in pursuit of any goal. (And Calvinism says that everything has been pre-determined by God, so there is no need for ethics.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was thinking about this and it occurred to me that it might be okay, instead of making a list of commandments, to make a list of "The Ten Facts" from which people can draw their own conclusions. These would be the facts that other philosophies and religions seek to evade. It is not terribly important that there be ten of them, but it would be neat to see them all listed in one place.

This list of facts would include such things as:

  • Existence, identity, and consciousness are axioms; they have to be asserted even in any attempt to deny them.
  • Existence behaves according to its identity, independently of anyone's conscious desires.
  • Concepts are man-made, but they have to conform to reality in order to be valid.
  • There is no general way to ascertain the truth or falsehood of arbitrary statements. Such statements are disconnected from reality and have no standing in reason.
  • Man's life is conditional; if he wants to live he has to do certain things and refrain from doing certain other things. This is what gives rise to the need for morality.
  • Man survives by means of reason. It is reason, and only reason, that allows him to alter his environment to produce the values his life requires. Therefore, a threat to a man's ability to reason is a threat to his existence.
  • Throughout history, the countries that have done most to free men from the coercion of other men have always been the most prosperous.

I wonder what else could be added. I wonder how short such a list could be and still cover everything essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Dwanyne says that he likes this sort of commandments over others, what he is essentially doing in my opinion, is assigning some degree of value to a set of commandments. I think that instead of using the word "like" we should only speak of them in regards to their degree of vice, since commandments as such are immoral, evil. Sort of like what Dr. Peikoff said (with either the last or the upcoming election or both) about campaigning for the virtues of a candidate or party, when it's a decision between two evils, so we must speak of them in regards to their vices. Here I think this is very much applicable in the case of commandments. They are evil so a person really (IMO) shouldn't say this "I like these sort of commandments over the other set". But more: I don't even think a person really should say, "I like these sorts, because they are less evil than the other set." A commandment is a commandment, no matter what that commandment says, they are ALL equally evil by their very nature, because they are commandments as such.

Plus, something is wrong with the very first part of Dwaynes conditional statement (if, then statement), "So if we had to have any" ...why even spectulate on something like that? ...when there should never be commandments as such? John Galt's way of speaking of it I think is different than the way you are presenting it Dwayne. He said "If I were to speak your kind of language", but you present a conditional statement in some of that very language, in my opinion. The first part of your conditional is the premise, which needed/needs to be checked properly. John Galt never presented that premise, nor a conditional (if, then statment) by the way he says it, but you did present one.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Christian would tell you that Heaven and Hell are a part of reality, and the fact that you are a human means that you're going to one of them. The appeal to causality is there in both their view and ours; the difference is "just" that they refer to an arbitrary, dreamed-up conception of causality while we refer to objective fact.

In their primacy-of-consciousness worldview, it is God's whims and commandments that have ultimate causal efficacy, while we, recognizing the primacy of existence, identify causality in the natures of the concrete entities that exist. This is the premise that differs. The premise that man's goal is to survive and that the purpose of ethics is to guide him in enacting the causes that will make him survive is shared by non-Calvinist Christianity and Objectivism. Kant, however, decrees that all considerations of causality should be removed from ethics and that morality consists of not ever acting in pursuit of any goal. (And Calvinism says that everything has been pre-determined by God, so there is no need for ethics.)

But I am talking about what is happening in reality, and that the recognition of reality is the big difference here. They're making stuff up that has nothing to do with, and contradicts the basic axioms of, reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I am talking about what is happening in reality, and that the recognition of reality is the big difference here. They're making stuff up that has nothing to do with, and contradicts the basic axioms of, reality.

Exactly my point. When you set up a conditional (if,then) statement, the very premise of the statement Dwayne was making, should never be fullfilled, per reality. There should not be any commandments as such, even if it is said in a speculative way, nonetheless, the premise undermines it from the very beginning either way, IMO. Thus making it unamusing/uninteresting, and I dare say - pointless, IMO.

(In John Galt's words quoted previously by me, judging by the way he says it, he knows that very premise undermines it, when you read it in it's entirety.)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I am talking about what is happening in reality, and that the recognition of reality is the big difference here. They're making stuff up that has nothing to do with, and contradicts the basic axioms of, reality.

For a moment I thought that you thought I missed that distinction. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Existence behaves according to its identity, independently of anyone's conscious desires.

Or subconscious. Reality responds no more to our subconscious thoughts that our conscious ones.

Actually, intellectualammo, you have it wrong. The premise of Dwayne's posts was to be tongue in check, to joke, and as Ayn Rand said in The Art of Fiction the purpose of a joke is to negate a negative, to negate an evil. So, I would say Dwayne joking about commadments is proper because in doing so he negates the concept of commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...