Atheist vs. Abrahamic: Which Ten Commandments are Better?

11025139_761021767327574_5990187042786048156_n

Advertisements
Image | This entry was posted in Atheism, Catholicism, Christianity, Jehovah's Witness, Judaism, Mormonism, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Atheist vs. Abrahamic: Which Ten Commandments are Better?

  1. Freethinker: Apparently, silence does not know the story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son to God, only for God, at the last moment to say, “April Fool! You really don’t have to!” Many Christians will claim it was God testing Abraham to see if he really would do whatever God would say. The difficulty with that demands that God would not be omniscient, lacking knowledge as to whether or not Abraham would or would not follow through.

    • ata,

      The story of Abraham and his son Isaac is one of the greatest stories in the Bible because it prefigures Jesus Christ, which is the purpose of the Old Testament.

      Atheists have no idea what the Bible really means and leaves “you people” to simply hallucinate your own means for it, however it suits you.

  2. Silence – How is a lack of a belief a form of propaganda?

    Who is “you folks”? You said “Atheism is so bad that you folks even absolve yourselves of the responsibility of having to explain yourself.” Given that Atheism is a LACK of a belief system, what is there which requires explanation by the Atheist?

  3. freethinker95 says:

    silenceofmind, nice examples,now I want to tell you some other examples about religious “peace”.,Religion has a history of burning free thinking woman branding them as witches.I am an Indian,1946 August 16,Streets of Calcutta was flooding with bodies of Hindus and Muslims..not one or two..6000 dead bodies,do you think atheists killed them? No,the hindus and muslims killed each other,Jawaharlal Nehru,who was an atheist who believed in secularism and socialism, the so called Hindu religious people in India burned a muslim woman in front of his house.Hitler, was a Roman catholic,he was baptised,even though he stopped believed in christianity at a time…he believed in God till his end , Religion killed more people that two world wars, what explanation can you give me to the silence of Pope pious xii ,when Hitler was attacking jews…Communists.,the atheists, respect others beliefs if it is not extreme,that is why Marxists in Kerala fought for the rights of low cast people to walk inside temples…in kerala there was a time where only high class hindus were allowed near temple…And Marxists fought for their rights….if it is a number game,my dear friend..religion wins the game of spilling blood

    • free,

      Religion does no such thing because religion is simply a set of ideas.

      People are the ones who commit evil.

      The meaning of the Bible and the fundamental teaching of Christianity is, “Love thy neighbor.”

      So if people kill and pillage in the name of Jesus, it is their fault, not the fault of the Christian religion.

      • freethinker95 says:

        What about God asking Abraham to kill his own son? if tomorrow a man feels like killing his own son,,,and after doing it can he say that God asked me commit it? …talking about Bible .in the book of genesis…there is a situation were two daughters mate with their father because they have no other way to give birth to next generation…is that love?, here are some other BIBLICAL MORAL TEACHINGS…..LOVE..EVERYWHERE
        You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

        Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

        Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

        Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

        Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

        Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

        Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

        Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

      • free,
        God did not require that Abraham sacrifice his own son.

        But God did in fact sacrifice his own Son, Jesus.

        When was the last time a Jew or Christian followed the requirements laid forth in Deuteronomy?

        Right, about 2500 years ago.

        free, you haven’t got the foggiest idea what the Bible means.

        You and other atheists shamelessly use it to further the atheist creed, however.

      • freethinker95 says:

        God sacrificed his own son,here we go..give a huge round of applause for the god who left his own son get crucified,on what basis can we depend on that God?if he left his own son to die in the most brutal way,then what about the rest of the mankind?

      • freethinker95 says:

        IF religion doesn’t commit evil and if it only the people who do it,then your examples are also irrelevant,because atheism never commits evil ..but the people do

      • free,

        The greatest mass murders in human history were committed by atheists and their genocidal regimes.

      • freethinker95 says:

        ha ha ha..man,seriously? start counting from crusades…till now,believers killed more than non believers..Adolf Hitler as I said earlier was also a believer,It is you who said that religion never commit evil,but people do..then atheist never committed the “greatest mass murders” you said,it is the people..like you said

      • free,

        Hitler was a piker compared to the atheists.

        Hitler genocide – 12,000,000

        Atheist genocides – 100,000,000 +

        The Crusades were wars responding to Islamic aggression similar to what is happening today.

      • freethinkers95 says:

        Any one with brain cells will find this math as a joke,Is not Islam a religion?,only Islam plays role in crusades?Aztec,Jihad,huting witches,inquisition,…the list won’t end..

      • Silence – I do not know what university/graduate school you attended, but to just claim “common knowledge” as a reference for any research would never be allowed in any academic writings.

        An example would be, for example, “It is common knowledge that Muslims want to kill anyone who is not Muslim, and that Islam is set on taking over the world by violence.” The difficulty is that both points are wrong. Islam does NOT teach that a Muslim should kill (let alone do any harm) to anyone who is not Muslim. Therefore, most Muslims want to harm nobody. The Qur’an (their holy book) teaches to even treat Christians and Jews with the utmost of respect as they, too, are “people of the Book.”

        Islam is not bent on global domination, either. It is set on getting along with one another, allowing peaceful and compassionate communication with everyone.

        Are you going to argue these points, because they are “common knowledge”?

      • ata,

        I attended three different grad schools, one Catholic, one Protestant, one secular.

        They all have the same rules.

      • Silence: Again, what Atheist genocide are you talking about where 100M people were killed in the name of Atheism? Name me a single incident, please.

      • The list is a rather long one, but atheists Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung racked up close to 100,000,000 genocidal murders between them.

        Because leftists now control the avenues of information it’s hard to find it on Google anymore.

        But I lived through the Soviet Union and Mao. There mass murdering made the news frequently.

        I posted a photo of an old article from the 1930’s concerning one of Stalin’s genocidal campaigns: https://silenceofmind.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/why-atheists-cannot-claim-to-be-moral/

      • Silence – again, Stalin and Chairman Mao did not kill millions “IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM” but for political reasons.

        You stated, “Christian ethics hold that the eradication of evil is good and that the slaughter of the innocent by the 10’s of millions is genocide, and therefore immoral.” Who claims that atheists do the opposite?

        You then stated, “Clearly, atheist “morality” leaves much to be desired, namely reason, logic and compassion, the very attributes that atheists claim to champion” – what is “atheist morality”? Are you saying that reason, logic and compassion is the problem?

        Finally, you said, “Consequently, the atheist himself proves that atheism cannot be moral.” Given that you have not stated how atheism has a lack of morality, how can you claim that atheism can’t be moral?

        Your claim that abortion is the killing of “innocent babies” is false, given legally that a zygote or fetus is NOT a baby – yet! It does have the potential to become a baby, but it is not by any means any such thing yet.

      • ata,

        In atheism God is replaced by the all-knowing, all-powerful State.

      • Silence – You stated, “In atheism God is replaced by the all-knowing, all-powerful State.” That is NOT the definition of atheism. Atheism is the following only:

        Atheism: A lack of a belief in a deity.

        Nothing more. Nothing less. That is it. You cannot claim that the “State” is the deity of atheists. Therefore, claiming that God is replaced by the “State” for atheists is inaccurate.

      • ata,

        Atheism has implications.

        If there is no God, than everything just happened all by itself.

        If there is no God, there is no objective, authoritative source of morals and ethics (what is good or evil).

        If there is no God, from which human rights originate, than the State must be author of human rights.

      • silence: Atheism does not claim there is no God. As I have informed you three times (maybe more) now, Atheism is a LACK OF A BELIEF IN A DEITY. It is not making a positive claim about there not being a deity.

        The only certain purpose we know at this time is subjective purpose.

        Morality/ethics are subjective.

        About how “it all happened”, we do not know how it all happened. By claiming “It must have been God” is known as “argument from ignorance.”

        Have you ANY evidence that human rights “come from God”? There is nothing empirical to prove that given there is no empirical evidence to prove God. For what we know at this point in time, human rights come from social construct – no, not “the state”, but an agreement among societies in which to best benefit the whole.

        Next?

      • ata,

        Apparently atheism has become so ridiculous that even atheist can’t stand who they are and must redefine themselves.

        It’s kind of like when global warming became so ridiculous, you people had to rename it, “climate change.”

        Here, from Google: atheism – disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

        That means atheists believe everything just happened all by itself.

        And no, there is objective purpose. Objective purpose is obvious. Atheists and other post moderns do not believe in the obvious.

        If you have any curiosity whatsoever, I would be glad to explain the obvious to you.

        That the universe had a First Cause is not an argument from ignorance, it is a conclusion based on “a priory” logic.

      • silence – you just defined Atheism, nearly verbatim for what I gave you. Again, as you even typed, “disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” It is NOT a belief in a lack of deities. Again, big difference!

        No, it does not mean atheists believe everything happened by mistake. It merely states that atheists do not believe in a deity. Even science does not claim to know what caused everything, but the hypotheses seem to aim toward first life as “Abiogenesis” and regarding the Universe, the Cosmological hypothesis of what is known as “the big bang.”

        First cause? You assume that it must be the God of Abraham, right? What if the Hindu is right and that it is Brahma and NOT the God of Abraham? What if it is Zoroastrianism’s Ahura Mazda?

        You can assume all you like, but apparently you do not understand that assumption runs about 95% wrong, much like how you keep calling me an atheist. I am not any sort of thing. I just have the professional responsibility to understand theology and atheism.

        So, again, you have shown nothing of any empirical nature to prove your points.

        Thank you for playing, but you do NOT win the reward for Queen For A Day.

      • ata,

        We know from the discoveries of modern science that human life begins with conception.

        That is undeniable.

        The just-conceived human being has a complete set of human DNA which defines both his personal and human nature.

        The point you pick in which to bequeath human rights upon a fully defined human being is purely arbitrary.

      • Silence: You stated, “The point you pick in which to bequeath human rights upon a fully defined human being is purely arbitrary.” What I have stated is not what I claim, but what the Supreme Court of the United States claims. SCOTUS takes their cues on this issue from medical/biological science.

      • ata,

        SCOTUS is a branch of government.

        Human rights cannot originate with government, otherwise they are arbitrary and always to the advantage of the stronger.

        You have just proved my point about how the atheist replaces God with the State.

      • About how Atheists make “The State” their God, that is still total nonsense. The State, through agreements and through documents, gives laws for which humanity can best survive and work in harmony. If that is evil to you, then maybe you should not be Christian because remember that Jesus said you are to follow the laws of the land.

        Now, unless you have any actual evidence for your claims, how about we end this because it is going nowhere.

        Out of curiosity, do you think I am an atheist? (I am regarding some theologies like you are an atheist to Norse religions and Greek, right?)

      • ata,

        I said that atheists replace God with the State.

      • free,
        By generalizing all religions you are showing the true heart of atheism which is moral relativism.

        Moral relativism is the inability to tell right from wrong.

      • freethinkers95 says:

        silenceofmind, Theists once suffered this problem of inability to tell right from wrong,that is why they once argued the earth is flat, Virgin birth is another ‘wrong’ which does not have the slight possibility to happen,so if people believe in virgin birth ,then who has the problem of telling right from wrong?,according to Genesis earth was formed before sun, so who believe in the ‘wrong’ ?…not just Bible,in Mahabharatha ,sun rides a chariot with seven horses around the earth,according to Qu ran,the moon was split into two….so who lacks the ability to distinguish right from wrong?..after all the so called powerful god needed six days to create universe ,and “powerful” god also needed rest? Wow !

  4. That atheists feel the need to mimic God and his Ten Commandments says it all about atheism.

    • Silence – sorry, but God is not being mimicked. It is a declaration that the 10 commandments of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world are quite weak and do not cover myriad issues. Personally, I find this author’s 10 commandments far more understandable and more humane.

      • ata,

        Why Ten Commandments? Why ten and not three or fifty?

        And why commandments and not suggestions or whatever even nothing. Let’s just go au natural.

        The point is, atheism is empty.

        And that means all atheists can do is mimic something good, like Christianity or go off the rails into retrograde barbarism.

      • How is Atheism equivalent to barbarism? You say atheism is empty. It is, if you are talking about having a belief in a deity, then yes, it is lacking that, but it does not appear to be a big deal given that Atheists, on average believe this is the only life they get, so they live the life fully, in joy, in love, with compassion.

        Do you have some objection to the ten commandments made by an Atheist? If so, which ones and why?

      • ata,

        Great question!

        The purpose of religion has always been to address the baser side of human nature.

        Atheism does nothing to address the baser side of human nature and it rejects outright religion; history has shown that religion is THE tried and true method of organizing human beings in such a way as to make civilization possible.

        There have never been, nor will there ever be, atheist civilizations. That is because since atheism does nothing to address the baser side of human nature, the atheist culture will dissolve into violence, bloodshed, oppression and poverty.

      • Yes, Atheism does nothing to address anything as it is a lack of a belief system. Therefore, it does not reject religion.

        Why do you think again that atheists are barbarians? They do not start wars or create hostility. Again, remember that Atheism is a LACK of a belief, therefore it has nothing to do with ethics or morality.

        I think, when you are talking about rejecting religion, you are talking about antitheists, not atheists.

      • ata,

        Atheism is in fact, a direct assault on religion.

        Atheists are very active in driving religion and religious values from the public sphere, from government, from ethics, from law.

        Atheist regimes always seek to eradicate religion.

      • I notice in your writings, you avoid giving ANY specific examples of your claims. For example, HOW is Atheism a direct assault on religion? HOW do they drive religion and religious values from the public sphere, from government, from ethics, from law?

        HOW are Atheist regimes seeking to eradicate religion?

        If you do not give any examples, I have no idea as to how to respond.

      • ata,

        It isn’t necessary to cite common knowledge.

        The Soviet and Maoist atheists slaughtered religious people and I personally know Catholic nuns who grew up in Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe.

        They had to worship in secret.

        Also, Saint John Paul II, Pope, made book in Poland during the Cold War fighting Soviet oppression.

        Today, the Chinese slaughter the Buddhist monks in Tibet in an effort to eradicate them.

        Atheist oppression of religion is in the news on a regular basis, especially the efforts of American atheists.

      • I thought not. Thank you for trying but your “examples” really have nothing to do with atheism – you just attach atheism to political nonsense.

      • ata,

        Here is what Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union said about atheism:

        “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

        Yes, did you know that atheism is nothing but Communist propaganda?

        Here is a link to “American Atheist” website listing their current lawsuits seeking the elimination of religion:

        http://atheists.org/legal/current-lawsuits

        If you are going to deny common knowledge it just means that to accept atheism one must be brainwashed.

      • Silence – the “propaganda” mentioned is a way of thinking. Nothing is saying it is “evil” or “bad” –

        Your claim about Atheists attempting to eliminate religion is total dishonest garbage. These lawsuits are against a. the preferential treatment of religious organizations, and b. about posting religious documents/images (10 commandments) in public government offices. So, please stop your blatant lying. Remember the 9th commandment, or because that is in the OT, that it does not apply to you?

      • ata,

        Propaganda that justifies mass murder and ruthless oppression is evil.

      • Again, here you are with more dishonest postings.

        Lenin was talking about the idea/concept of Atheism. Propaganda is the “thinkings” of a particular issue – not the issue of brainwashing, as it appears you seem to imply.

      • ata,
        Atheism is pure propaganda.

        Atheism is so bad that you folks even absolve yourselves of the responsibility of having to explain yourself.

      • Silence – what you call “common knowledge” can be rumours, therefore, not always accurate. What you are claiming as common knowledge, therefore accurate, is fallacious.

        Did the Soviet and Maoist atheists slaughter people in the name of Atheism? No. Chinese killed Buddhist monks because of domination of the land known as Tibet.

        Nice try, but your arguments are flawed most badly.

        Again, NONE of your examples to date has ANYTHING to do with Atheism, but other issues.

      • ata,
        Common knowledge is not rumor.

        It is a standard used in grad school as a guide for citations.

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s