The Ten (10) Non Commandments

[Times Roman]

The Ten Non-Commandments:

I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.
IV. All truth is proportional to the evidence.
V. There is no God.
VI. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
VII. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave.
VIII. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy.
IX. We benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society.
X. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.

[Times Roman]

STANFORD, Calif. (RNS) An atheist, a humanist and an agnostic walk into a restaurant.

The hostess says, “Table for one?”

An old joke, yes, but its essence lies at the heart of “Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century,” a new book by Lex Bayer and John Figdor.

Bayer, 36, is a Stanford grad and longtime humanist, and Figdor, 30, is the new humanist chaplain at Stanford University. The two met when Bayer, a venture capitalist and engineer, wrote a news story about Figdor’s arrival at Stanford. The two soon discovered they liked hashing out difficult ideas about the way people live.

They began meeting regularly for coffee, brought along their computers and were soon on their way to drafting a book — a kind of philosophical roadmap to essential beliefs for nonbelievers.

“There are lots of books out there about why you should not believe in God,” Bayer said. “But there aren’t any about what do secular people believe in. I think that’s the question John and I felt hadn’t been adequately addressed.”

In exploring that, the two men — both whom have studied philosophy and logic — came up with 10 essentials. For the extra-nerdy, there’s even “a theorem of belief” in the appendix that looks like something a mathematician might scribble.

The result is 10 “non-commandments” — the authors’ irreducible statements of atheist and humanist belief.

First up: “The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.”

No. 2 on the list: “We can perceive the world only through our human senses.”

Halfway through, at No. 5, the authors conclude: “There is no God.” Once over that hurdle, the non-commandments become less controversial — an ethical society is good, as is moral behavior.

But it is the last non-commandment that makes these maxims very different from the biblical version: All of the above is “subject to change in the face of new evidence.” They are, quite literally, not written in stone.

The goal of the book, the authors say, is to encourage atheists and humanists to define what they believe so they can articulate it better, both to themselves and to a broader society that often regards atheists as immoral and untrustworthy.

“We want to show people who may have a false view of the atheist community as this sour group of people who want to prove there is no God and sit in a basement all day and argue about that,” Figdor said. “But we want to show them it is actually full of happy, empathetic and compassionate people whose lives are full of meaning and value.”

What’s also different is that these non-commandments are intended to be interactive. Included in the book is a worksheet where readers can craft their own list of non-commandments. They can share these commandments on a website the authors set up for just such an exchange.

Some of the submissions read like prescriptions for happiness: “Be happy,” “Do not fear death,” and “Keep your sense of humor.” And some are commandments of the biblical kind: “Do not kill,” “Do not steal” and “Be truthful.” Others express a sense of hope that abiding by them could lead to a better world.

“Treat yourself, others and the planet with compassion and reverence,” Leslie Heil submitted.

Figdor and Bayer are delighted by the range — about 1,600 responses submitted so far.

To encourage more, they’ve established a “ReThink Prize” — $10,000 to be distributed among 10 winners whose submissions receive the most votes. The contest runs through Nov. 30, and all the submissions will be available online for discussion and inspiration.

The book has been received warmly by atheist and humanist reviewers. David Niose, president of the Secular Coalition for America, called it “a wonderful exploration of life as a skeptic.”

And some in the religious world have lauded it, too. Dudley Rose, associate dean for ministry studies at Harvard Divinity School, where Figdor was a student, wrote a supportive blurb for the book.

“Living rightly with one another is at the heart of these non-commandments,” Rose said in a telephone interview. “That is very similar to the way in which I view how those of us in religious communities think of our commandments and our lives with one another and everyone else in the world.”


10 Commandments For Atheists Who Want To Explore Their Values

[thisAngelBites]

I'm generally not that crazy about this sort of thing, but since they're both logicians (and logic is supremely sexy) and I am therefore kindly disposed to both authors, I will point out that number 8 is quite an interesting restatement of the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), but it carefully avoids what has always been a philosophical problem with the Golden Rule, which is the following: what we want is not necessarily what other people want. This makes the rule problematic as usually stated. The classic case is the masochist, who, when we do unto as we would like done to us, will probably be disappointed. (Hope that didn't sound too full of innuendo!) But it's a nice way to avoid that problem whilst still retaining the essential force of the GR.

[Kozmo]

While you may be able to disprove a God as they have been preached. Now, I welcome you to try to disprove the notion of a higher power. Put that in your atheist pipe and smoke it.

[Times Roman]

I'm generally not that crazy about this sort of thing, but since they're both logicians (and logic is supremely sexy) and I am therefore kindly disposed to both authors, I will point out that number 8 is quite an interesting restatement of the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), but it carefully avoids what has always been a philosophical problem with the Golden Rule, which is the following: what we want is not necessarily what other people want. This makes the rule problematic as usually stated. The classic case is the masochist, who, when we do unto as we would like done to us, will probably be disappointed. (Hope that didn't sound too full of innuendo!) But it's a nice way to avoid that problem whilst still retaining the essential force of the GR.

Ha!

I've used that very same POV when discussing sexual situations (which obviously give way to wider things in general). The golden rule is flawed, and I've known it for some time, although I've never put much energy into analyzing it. So suppose you are a submissive, then how does the golden rule apply? Dominate others as you would wish to be dominated?

So I agree, in this case, VIII is apparently a better guide than the GR

[Times Roman]

While you may be able to disprove a God as they have been preached. Now, I welcome you to try to disprove the notion of a higher power. Put that in your atheist pipe and smoke it.

And this is the crux of religion. When words are spoken that are contrary to the king james, many people such as yourself fail to articulate your frustration, so instead, resort to anger and violence.

Use your words mate. Remain clear headed, and verbalize how you feel. And if you feel you do not have the intellectual horsepower to debate, then please remain silent. We are NOT in the lounge!

[Kozmo]

Bro if I were to be classified it would be agnostic. Everyone of my posts has an air of humor which is a lot funnier to me most of the time because sarcasm doesn't come across well online. All early religions are based off astronomy. "The heavens"

[bartman314]

perhaps stated more diplomatically... the case for a higher power can be made on rational grounds.

referring to an input in your other thread regarding the big bang, i wonder what existed prior to the bang. and if all of the universe really is expanding (which all experimental evidence indicates), what is outside the space defined by the expanding universe? and how did the laws of physics come to be the way they are (and not some other way)? how can all this mass and energy simply have come from nothing and nowhere? there must be some rational explanation... why not a higher power?

[Kozmo]

Stating things diplomatically is against my religion. So I'll leave it to you

[thisAngelBites]

perhaps stated more diplomatically... the case for a higher power can be made on rational grounds.

referring to an input in your other thread regarding the big bang, i wonder what existed prior to the bang. and if all of the universe really is expanding (which all experimental evidence indicates), what is outside the space defined by the expanding universe? and how did the laws of physics come to be the way they are (and not some other way)? how can all this mass and energy simply have come from nothing and nowhere? there must be some rational explanation... why not a higher power?

You think that assuming gods when you don't know an answer is rational? I guess that gives us a whole new rational basis for hormone questions on this board. Why is my SHBG so high? I guess the gods want it that way.

[Times Roman]

perhaps stated more diplomatically... the case for a higher power can be made on rational grounds.

referring to an input in your other thread regarding the big bang, i wonder what existed prior to the bang. and if all of the universe really is expanding (which all experimental evidence indicates), what is outside the space defined by the expanding universe? and how did the laws of physics come to be the way they are (and not some other way)? how can all this mass and energy simply have come from nothing and nowhere? there must be some rational explanation... why not a higher power?

what existed prior to the big bang?
---------even the bangers will tell you that time/space were generated simultaneously. From the bangers perspective, there was no "before". this is Banger Theory 101, discussed endlessly for the last 20 years. whole books are written on it. Going backwards in time, you take an event, and you split the distance between current time and the time of the bang. then you split that time in half, and so on. So what happened before, you can go regressively back without end, taking the time and splitting it in half, and still not be at the moment of the bang. There is no "before" according to the bangers.

what is outside the space of the expanding universe?
------------there are many theories mate.

1) we live in an expanding bubble of space/time. just as there is no "before" there is no "outside" as the expansion is actually developing/making space time as it expands.
2) we live in a multiverse, and there could be other universes out there we theoretically could travel to in our 3d universe, but too far for light speed travel. if we had ftl, then we could traverse the void until we came upon the next universe. that is, there could be other bangs going on elsewhere, but we would never know because C is the ultimate "constraint"

3) how did the laws of physics come to be the way they are?
--------parallel universe theory says that all possible laws of physics are present in all the various universes out there. but it just so happens to be that in our particular universe, the one that allows life, we find that we are able to look about and ask that very same question.

4) how could all this mass and energy come from nothing?
-------it's called a quantum fluctuation. A well known aspect of quantum physics, and is/has been "observed" many many times in experiments.

5) why not a higher power?
----------because we are rational beings. and for those of us that like to think critically and scientifically, we do not bow down to things we do not understand. instead, we rise up and try to understand them. If you want to deify the sun, because you do not understand how it is possible it rises in the east every day without fail, be my guest. But i'll be the one with the note pad and pencil, making observations, and figuring out what it really is, besides calling it a deity out of ignorance and fear.

[Kozmo]

I said you can't disprove a higher power. You haven't been able to

[bartman314]

angel, I'm not assuming so-called gods, i'm just not ruling out the possibility. that being said, i haven't seen any evidence that uniquely supports a higher power. frankly, if gods exist, which i personally doubt, i think it is pure speculation to consider what they want or care about (or if such is even relevant). all evidence suggests that if gods exist, they are dispassionate and non-interventionist in nature. that is, god doesn't care about your shbg.

and for times roman, i agree with much of what you say, especially the point about standing up and questioning. that being said, i think it is a mistake to conclude that higher powers don't exist - that sounds almost religious to me. it is more precise to say the evidence does not support their existence. rationality requires an open mind both ways.

[Juced_porkchop]

I thought it said "TREN" not "TEN" .... : S

[Times Roman]

angel, I'm not assuming so-called gods, i'm just not ruling out the possibility. that being said, i haven't seen any evidence that uniquely supports a higher power. frankly, if gods exist, which i personally doubt, i think it is pure speculation to consider what they want or care about (or if such is even relevant). all evidence suggests that if gods exist, they are dispassionate and non-interventionist in nature. that is, god doesn't care about your shbg.

and for times roman, i agree with much of what you say, especially the point about standing up and questioning. that being said, i think it is a mistake to conclude that higher powers don't exist - that sounds almost religious to me. it is more precise to say the evidence does not support their existence. rationality requires an open mind both ways.

I've written a lot. and I don't expect you to have read it all. I'm playing against both sides. I'm in the middle. I'm saying I don't know who is right, if anyone can be right. I'm saying I don't know. I'm also saying I don't know how any one can know with certainty. And anyone that says they do know, is, imho, saying so from a non factual, emotional pov. And I'm also saying there is nothing wrong with such a position.

I am also saying I find it hypocritical for one side to try and bash the other, and say they are wrong, since again, imho, neither side can know with certainty.

What I would like, is instead of the antagonistic tension we find today between not only the two sides, theism and atheism, but also amongst the various theisms (religions). You know, it seem pure lunacy to me that Muslims think Christians are infidels, and Christians think that Jews are heretics. And Jews hate Muslims.

Boy, what a viscous circle.

It seems like a terrible oxymoron that so many self proclaimed "true" religions to be based on love, can harbor so much hate and ill will towards man.

...........it's a wonder we haven't wiped ourselves out by now. We almost did in a couple of world wars. I wonder what the next 50 years has in store for us with all this hate. I won't be around to see it, but my kids will, and "lord" have mercy on them. Please!

[bartman314]

AMEN! sounds like we share a common belief!

extremism with respect to any theism is a problem.

[Times Roman]

AMEN! sounds like we share a common belief!

extremism with respect to any theism is a problem.

roger that!

[treant]

While you may be able to disprove a God as they have been preached. Now, I welcome you to try to disprove the notion of a higher power. Put that in your atheist pipe and smoke it.

That is where the idea of a flying spaghetti monster came from. There are so many possibilities why would you limit yourself to God? I mean, if you take it to be true that what the people of the past said about God doesn't make any sense, then you have to see that there are like INFINITE possibilities.. and to pick any ONE of those possibilities seems kind of ridiculous..

Thats where pastafarians come from.. WE BELIEVE IN AN INVISIBLE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!

[treant]

perhaps stated more diplomatically... the case for a higher power can be made on rational grounds.

referring to an input in your other thread regarding the big bang, i wonder what existed prior to the bang. and if all of the universe really is expanding (which all experimental evidence indicates), what is outside the space defined by the expanding universe? and how did the laws of physics come to be the way they are (and not some other way)? how can all this mass and energy simply have come from nothing and nowhere? there must be some rational explanation... why not a higher power?

Because a higher power brings us no closer to the answer.. What created the higher power?! We are back to square zero again my friend..

[treant]

Now that doesn't mean that there isn't a God.. it just means that the logic of "how could anything possibly exist? well it must be god" is faulty. because then you have to explain how God could exist.. A bigger God? who created THAT god? You see how that logic doesn't really work..

so there COULD be a God but it doesnt follow logically from the kunundrum of something coming from nothing.


I know because that used to be my rationale behind believing in God.. then I was like.. "wait a minute... what created God? that didnt answer anything!"

[RA]

It's not religions fault that people misuse/misinterpret their faith. Love is the basis of Christianity and plenty of Christians understand that. Glad your searching Roman, hope you find it.

I've written a lot. and I don't expect you to have read it all. I'm playing against both sides. I'm in the middle. I'm saying I don't know who is right, if anyone can be right. I'm saying I don't know. I'm also saying I don't know how any one can know with certainty. And anyone that says they do know, is, imho, saying so from a non factual, emotional pov. And I'm also saying there is nothing wrong with such a position.

I am also saying I find it hypocritical for one side to try and bash the other, and say they are wrong, since again, imho, neither side can know with certainty.

What I would like, is instead of the antagonistic tension we find today between not only the two sides, theism and atheism, but also amongst the various theisms (religions). You know, it seem pure lunacy to me that Muslims think Christians are infidels, and Christians think that Jews are heretics. And Jews hate Muslims.

Boy, what a viscous circle.

It seems like a terrible oxymoron that so many self proclaimed "true" religions to be based on love, can harbor so much hate and ill will towards man.

...........it's a wonder we haven't wiped ourselves out by now. We almost did in a couple of world wars. I wonder what the next 50 years has in store for us with all this hate. I won't be around to see it, but my kids will, and "lord" have mercy on them. Please!