The atheist new Ten Commandments

[soulster]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/living...html?hpt=hp_t2

Here are the "Ten Non-Commandments" chosen as the winners:
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 of 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.

I personally take issue with #3.

[Jerry Oz]

I'm Christian and I have no problem with any of that. Most of them are implied by the New Testament anyway, so why they are inherently athiestic is beyond my understanding. In my view, the most important commandment is this: Seek your own salvation.

[blueskies]

There are many paths to the top of the mountain.

[Jerry Oz]

There are many paths to the top of the mountain.

Even if there aren't, as long as you don't block my path you're golden. I promise not to get in your way.

[Crystaledwards]

I am Agnostic and these make complete sense to me.

To live and let live and be open minded is a rather healthy way to get through life.

CE

[blueskies]

Even if there aren't, as long as you don't block my path you're golden. I promise not to get in your way.

Likewise, Jerry.

[144man]

Soulster,
what exactly is your problem with Number 3?

[soulster]

Soulster,
what exactly is your problem with Number 3?

There are still things that science cannot explain, or we haven't found a way to explain it through the scientific method. Think about it: having an open mind means never discounting what you don't see. In other words, it is closed-minded to think that just because science can't [[yet) explain something doesn't mean it isn't true. It works both ways. A true agnostic or atheist accepts all possibilities.

[marv2]

There are many paths to the top of the mountain.

I have to disagree according to my teachings and belief. Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6

[Jerry Oz]

There are still things that science cannot explain, or we haven't found a way to explain it through the scientific method. Think about it: having an open mind means never discounting what you don't see. In other words, it is closed-minded to think that just because science can't [[yet) explain something doesn't mean it isn't true. It works both ways. A true agnostic or atheist accepts all possibilities.

Not just that, but how much science is accepted based upon the word of the person claiming to have discovered the knowledge? Unless someone takes the time and effort to recreate the results, the scientist and his/her notes are validated if the conclusion makes sense. And conclusions are often based on interpretation, expectation, and experience. In the end, a lot of science is just as faith-based as many religions. Believe it if you will, but science books are bibles for many.

[Jerry Oz]

I have to disagree according to my teachings and belief. Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6

I have long realized that my beliefs are my own and that others may not share them. I don't preach them or try to reach them once they've made their conclusions. Many don't seek salvation and also don't believe it's available, so I only talk religion with those inclined to respect my beliefs.

[144man]

Not just that, but how much science is accepted based upon the word of the person claiming to have discovered the knowledge? Unless someone takes the time and effort to recreate the results, the scientist and his/her notes are validated if the conclusion makes sense. And conclusions are often based on interpretation, expectation, and experience. In the end, a lot of science is just as faith-based as many religions. Believe it if you will, but science books are bibles for many.

No science is accepted on the word of the person claiming to have discovered the knowledge. It is checked and rechecked by other scientists against observable results. The result of any experiment must be repeatable before it becomes scientific lore. Until it is proved by observation a theory remains a theory.

[144man]

There are still things that science cannot explain, or we haven't found a way to explain it through the scientific method. Think about it: having an open mind means never discounting what you don't see. In other words, it is closed-minded to think that just because science can't [[yet) explain something doesn't mean it isn't true. It works both ways. A true agnostic or atheist accepts all possibilities.

I have no problem with Commandment 3 if "reliable" is replaced by "rational".

As a pure agnostic, I do not believe that it is possible to prove the existence or non-existence of God by rational or scientific methods. However, I do believe in God. That's a matter of faith.

[Jerry Oz]

No science is accepted on the word of the person claiming to have discovered the knowledge. It is checked and rechecked by other scientists against observable results. The result of any experiment must be repeatable before it becomes scientific lore. Until it is proved by observation a theory remains a theory.

Have YOU checked anything that is reported in science journals or accepted the word of those who say they have? I'm not disagreeing with science or the scientific method, just stating what should be obvious that anyone who has not checked it for himself is taking the same leap of faith as adherents to religious doctrines. In fact, their objection to those who question their beliefs is every bit as vehement as the most extreme fundamentalist.

And in many cases, those doing the checking are reviewing case notes of studies that lasted for years, with sometimes thousands of test subjects. It's impossible to replicate that study, so they review the science that was reported to see if it's sound. So although it is checked, it is not likely that someone will spend the same prohibitive amount of money or time to replicate the results.

[arr&bee]

Too bad chuck heston isn't around to clear this up.

[144man]

I believe that the scientific method works in principle.

Several years ago it was announced by a scientist that an example of cold fusion had been discovered. The experiment was checked and rechecked independently, and it was found that no cold fusion had taken place. Similarly, in the search for the Higgs Boson particle, a Higgs-like particle has been discovered. Whether it is the Higgs particle is still a matter of speculation. The experiments cannot be checked by any individual but there is no reason to think that anyone is lying.

The Theory of Evolution is consistent with archaeological and biological observations, which I am prepared to take on trust. "Natural selection" has been proved and the main problem seems to be a misunderstanding by the non-scientific world of the continued use of the word "theory".

However I do have a caveat. For example, if smoking was shown not to be harmful, and the results were funded by the tobacco industry, then I would have my doubts.

[Jerry Oz]

So, like I said before, you have faith in science and those who document it [[for the most part). That's your religion. I have no problems with science or scientific principles and don't find 99% of what is reported to be incongruous with my religious beliefs. I think that you should cast the same leery eye at researchers beyond those who have apparent conflicts of interest. You'll find that they aren't all as innocent in their motives as you might want to believe just like a great number of preachers have unclean hands in their pulpits.

What I know is that when you're in discovery mode, what you'll find is strongly influenced by what you think you'll find. So we often tend to connect dots because it appears there is a relationship between them. And whether you believe it or not, people are swayed by other motives than the joy of discovery and these motives - notoriety, continued research funding, self esteem or pure ego, seeking to justify previous research - taint their conclusions every bit as much as those of people seeking a religious answer for why the universe exists.

So, to end my input on this subject, there's no harm in questioning your reasons for believing in anything whether it's the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Jim Jones, or Stephen Hawking. The only way to find your own personal truth is to test your beliefs to see if they hold water. Failing to do so only proves that you're afraid of what you'll find.

[arr&bee]

Hey jerry,just one sip of this wonderful elixur and you will not be afraid of anything..spirital,physical,mental,outworldly,inwo rldly,atheist,religous,democrat,republican,certifi ed public accountant or dogwalker,your spirit won't touch the ground.