The Atheist Alternative: The 10 Commandments.

reply to post by adjensen


The very fact the Christian commandments include 1 and 2 show that mono-theistic religion promotes exclusivity.

Besides, if you thought the Master of the Universe didn't want you to practice any religion but the "truthful" one then surely you would be fearful to disobey. Of course you would be, this is what prejudice religion causes.

It's not a case of you believe it or you don't. If you don't the followers of the religion are bound to think they are acting moraly superior to you. If you are gay, religious people will believe you are an abomination. These are the kind of irrational prejudice we get from mono-theism. It does nothing great for society.

Mono-theistic religions DO promote exclusivity, this inherently causes prejudice and separation in society. Palestine and Ireland are just a few modern examples.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

The very fact the Christian commandments include 1 and 2 show that mono-theistic religion promotes exclusivity.

Besides, if you thought the Master of the Universe didn't want you to practice any religion but the "truthful" one then surely you would be fearful to disobey. Of course you would be, this is what prejudice religion causes.

It's not a case of you believe it or you don't. If you don't the followers of the religion are bound to think they are acting moraly superior to you. If you are gay, religious people will believe you are an abomination. These are the kind of irrational prejudice we get from mono-theism. It does nothing great for society.

Mono-theistic religions DO promote exclusivity, this inherently causes prejudice and separation in society. Palestine and Ireland are just a few modern examples.

edit on 29/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Maybe you didn't word this correctly, or maybe I'm just being thick in the head, but this doesn't make any sense. If I believe that there is only one God, this is somehow limiting you? If Christianity teaches that there is one God, this is somehow unfair? Are we being prejudiced against Vishnu, Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster by saying that the God of Abraham is not them?

Again... I don't care what you believe, I have complete tolerance of whatever you want to think about God. That's between you and him, not me. There's no reason to drag homosexuality into it, because neither Commandment #1 or #2 says anything about that, but even if you do, by Christ's teachings, I love homosexuals the same as everyone else and would not, for an instant, consider them "an abomination." I am on record, repeatedly, as being a supporter of gay rights.

I would hold that it is, in fact, your beliefs that are intolerant and prejudiced, because you seem to equate Christianity with intolerance, when this is not the case. Do not confuse the loudest shouters as being those who have a firm grip on the values that a person of faith may hold.

As with Hitchens, you seem to be displaying a credo that demands support for what a person is, inherently, but denies support for what they choose to be, if it differs from your own opinion. That is a fairly good definition of bigotry, wouldn't you say?

reply to post by adjensen

I love homosexuals the same as everyone else and would not, for an instant, consider them "an abomination." I am on record, repeatedly, as being a supporter of gay rights.

But your God disagrees, there's no misinterpretation required to conclude that.

At least Evangelical believers are consistent with their belief in the word of "GOD". Many vague believers cherry pick the parts they like, which in turn is making a new denomination of the religion. Like Mormonism or other versions of reformed Christianity. You are just editing the original scriptures, choosing philosophy and morals that fit our current accepted worldview.

This stands to show that man's thinking evolves over time, we have outgrown the philosophies and morales in the bible, we had to change them because some were too unfit for a civil society. It shows that religion is man-made, not God-made.

I have no problem with a simple belief in God (DEISM) But i fail to see the logic-path to understanding that God's thoughts and desires.(Theism or organised religion)

I see the need for a sense of community and love, but i don't see the need for the supernatural nonsense; the "GOD", the "Sin" the "Prayer" the "Heaven" the "Hell" - These are just abstract metaphysical ideas that cannot be confirmed or denied.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
You are just editing the original scriptures, choosing philosophy and morals that fit our current accepted worldview.

Not at all. In the Gospels, Jesus is asked what a person need do to achieve eternal life, to be right with God. His response was those simple two commandments. At its core is what I have said, and if God has something against homosexuals, then it is between a homosexual and him, not a homosexual and I.

Christ teaches that we treat all people fairly. I am surprised that you disagree.

But i fail to see the logic-path to understanding that God's thoughts and desires.(Theism or organised religion)

What you do or do not find logical is no basis for judging other people. As I said, if you are intolerant of other peoples' beliefs, simply because you disagree with them, you exhibit the same bigotry that you decry in others.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm just against ideology that promotes ignorance, discrimination and prejudice. This includes Nazism, Racial hatred, homophobia and even religion. The cause of conflict in Ireland and Palestine is clearly religion. In Palestine, the land was promised in scripture! for both Jews and Muslims.

Lets just make this clear.

I am not a bigot.

I am not against freedom of expression, that means i respect someones right to believe what they want to believe. But when that belief has harmful affects towards society i will express my concerns, as i have a right to do.

It's not discrimination, it's not racism, it's not disrespect, If i think a belief is wrong, illogical or even stupid, i have a right to say why i think that. THat's what free speech means.

You don't respect Hitler's right to promote a Master Race ideology and discrimination against blacks, you don't respec that, do you? Respect isn't automatically given out, it is gained.

Organised religion makes two claims 1) There is a God 2) These are the morals, desires and history of this God and man.

Man cannot reveal wisdom of God, if they could and demonstrate it so, God would be a science. AT the moment, an intelligent creator/designer is a faith theory. Some may say infinity is a faith theory too.

If you could respond to all of my arguments i won't have to repeat myself again.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Lets just make this clear.

I am not a bigot.

I am not against freedom of expression, that means i respect someones right to believe what they want to believe. But when that belief has harmful affects towards society i will express my concerns, as i have a right to do.

It's not discrimination, it's not racism, it's not disrespect, If i think a belief is wrong, illogical or even stupid, i have a right to say why i think that. THat's what free speech means.

Of course you have a right to say it. There is no law against bigotry. You are obviously offended by the label, but you are a bigot, by definition.

World English Dictionary
bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
(source)

That's the behaviour that you're exhibiting, sorry if you disagree. You call me a shallow Christian because I don't hate homosexuals, for pete's sakes, can you be any more obvious?

You don't respect Hitler's right to promote a Master Race ideology and discrimination against blacks, you don't respec that, do you? Respect isn't automatically given out, it is gained.

Hitler? Really? Are you so intellectually vapid that you're already jumping to that?

Organised religion makes two claims 1) There is a God 2) These are the morals, desires and history of this God and man.

Man cannot reveal wisdom of God, if they could and demonstrate it so, God would be a science. AT the moment, an intelligent creator/designer is a faith theory. Some may say infinity is a faith theory too.

If you could respond to all of my arguments i won't have to repeat myself again.

Frankly, in all that, I don't see any argument, just a bunch of random statements. Yes, as a Christian, I believe that there is a God. Yes, he tells us to love him and love each other. What's the problem with that?

reply to post by adjensen


No problem. Seems i'm a bigot because i don't respect some ideas expressed in religion. Because i think certain values written by man in religious doctrine are immoral i'm a bigot, That's ok. Because i know i'm not.

That's no problem we disagree. I have a right to disagree with ethics/morality/philosophy/stories in religion, I should not be commanded to respect it, this goes against free speech.

Now we can get back onto the subject matter:-

Can anyone else think of any commandments that would be useful for human soldarity or for stable civilisation?

Thanks.

A question, from a bigot to a non-bigot, do you respect Hitler's ideology or beliefs? Be careful, if you say no, you are definetly a bigot. (by your definition)

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Can anyone else think of any commandments that would be useful for human soldarity or for stable civilisation?

I thought that your point in posting this thread was a recommendation of Hitchens' ten?

I'm still waiting to hear why following Christ's two, or even just a simple "love your neighbour as yourself" isn't sufficient.

A question, from a bigot to a non-bigot, do you respect Hitler's ideology or beliefs? Be careful, if you say no, you are definetly a bigot. (by your definition)

You're not understanding what bigotry is, sorry. It is not about respect for someone or judging their actions, which you seem to equate it with.

Bigotry is an intolerance for someone, simply because they disagree with you. If you belittle someone, or think yourself superior, or dismiss their value, simply because they believe something which you do not, that is bigotry.

As I said, your insistence that I must be a "cherry picker" and a poor Christian, simply because I do not fit the mould you've imagined that all Christians must be fundamentalists and homophobes, because that's the basis of your irrational disdain, is a clear demonstration that you are a bigot. You don't like it, because you realize that it lumps you in with racists and homophobes, but their rationale for hating other races or sexualities is no more invalid than yours for opposing people of a different faith.

You do not believe in God. I have no objection to your holding that point of view, and I refuse to judge you, or imagine some characteristics about you as a result of your atheism. But if you took your non-belief a little too seriously and began going around shooting up churches, do you believe that I still need not care? That's the difference between bigotry and rational judgement.

If you do not wish to be labelled as a bigot, and you apparently do not, simply stop acting like one.

reply to post by adjensen

Bigotry is an intolerance for someone, simply because they disagree with you

You disagree with Hitler, don't you?

I'm not a bigot because i have concerns towards particular religion or some particular ideology within a religion. If i disagree that someone has psycic powers, this does not mean i am a bigot.

Please understand that, and stop slandering me with that term. I can play the bigot game too.

If you disagree with me, say why, but don't call me a bigot. I'm not a xenophobe, homophobe, a racist, a nihilist or a megalomaniac.

Re Adjensen:

You wrote:

["If I believe that there is only one God, this is somehow limiting you? If Christianity teaches that there is one God, this is somehow unfair? Are we being prejudiced against Vishnu, Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster by saying that the God of Abraham is not them?"]

It's my opinion, that there are two levels of perspectives on this. One is social and one is academical (as concerning abstract concepts).

At least in Europe, there's a general deep distrust of christianities, which let themselves be taken over by the 'loudmouths', and which consequently manifested socially in very unpleasant ways. THEN the passive parts of the christianities just seemed to hang on to a free ride.

Whether this is a fair attitude these days is difficult to say, because when the loudmouths start, part of the more moderate christians have a tendency to rally round these ideological spearheads, instead of washing their hands of claims of re-introducing christian privileges. Even in my very secular nation, there's not a month without such claims, being followed up by otherwise decent christians ('decent' in a context of on their own respecting liberal, egalitarian norms).

At the academic level, I can only totally agree with you, that there's no need for getting too heated. But there is the problem, that it's seldom that pure academic 'meetings' take place; somewhere, from some direction, social agendas sneak in, and the polarizations start.

I have no patent answer to this problem, but a first step would be to outline positions more clearly. E.g. when is a person 'preaching' with the aim of proselytizing, when is presented 'information' a sound part of a dialogue. It can't be denied, that the christian loudmouths show open signs of a wish for ideological monopoly. And possibly some atheists can be accused of openly ANTI-theistic agendas (I'm not so familiar with that end of it).

And ofcourse it's impossible to establish objective rules on such meetings, but that's not needed either. It just has to be the same rules for everybody. It's not that I mind the ideological pie-throwing (which is so not common in Europe in religionist contexts, except with jihadism), but often it results in completely meaningless: "Is, isn't, is, isn't.....".

So some simple first steps could be taken. A counter on threads ("Do I have a 'public', so I must show my best instead of just repeating myself endlessly") and some basic awareness of what is logic, faith, induction, general semantics etc. A few 'authoritative' reference articles, sanctioned by the lords of ATS, could do much to diminish the general noise.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
If you disagree with me, say why, but don't call me a bigot. I'm not a xenophobe, homophobe, a racist, a nihilist or a megalomaniac.

Yes, well, the difficulty of pointing out someone's improper behaviour is that they rarely see it as being wrong. Be that as it may, push back your intolerance by explaining why you and Hitchens both are fundamentalists and demand a literal reading of a book you don't believe in, and you demand that anyone (such as myself) who disagrees with you hold to that same belief.

You called me a weak Christian because I am not a fundamentalist, please explain how this is not bigotry, a presuppositional prejudice based on the fact that I don't fit your imaginings of what a Christian needs to be. (Though, if you would, take the time to read the remainder of this post before replying.)

To attempt to get things back on track with your original post, I again pose the question to you. The Ten Commandments are clearly directed at those who wish to follow God, so there's nothing wrong with an atheist saying that #1 and #2 are not valid -- they certainly are not for him, as he does not wish to follow God.

However, a "simple" Christian faith encompasses Christ's two commandments, because not only did he specifically say that this was what you needed to do to attain eternal life, but they cover all ten original commandments, the entirety of Judaic Torah Law, and even take care of Hitchens' ten and pretty much everything else that would be needed to make the world a better place for all of us.

Setting aside the first, "love God", since you're neither interested in eternal life or following God, why can we not simply accept the second, "love everyone as yourself" and let it go at that?

But I have already told you why not, at least why Hitchens would not. Because he doesn't want to treat everyone else like himself. He reserves the right to belittle and be offensive to those who don't agree with him. If you can't help but be different, that's one thing. But if you choose to be different, if you choose to have faith, then you are choosing to be in opposition to Hitchens, and that makes you fair game.

Do not, for one moment, believe that I do not struggle with that myself, frequently. What that second commandment asks is far more difficult than it sounds. We, all of us, struggle to just treat people that we love as ourselves sometimes, imagine how difficult it is to treat everyone that way. People you don't know, people who spit at you, people who are patently offensive.

For a Christian, we believe that the strength to do that comes from the first commandment, loving God. For a non believer, it will need to come from somewhere else, or the person will have to admit that, while loving everyone as yourself is a noble intention, it is an unreachable and unreasonable goal.

My points about your intolerance are not because I don't like you and I want to get your goat. I bring them up because I respect you, and think that you're a reasonable person who would recognize and reject these attitudes of intolerance if they are brought to the fore.

Again, it is a simple matter of being critical of a person's words or deeds (if appropriate,) but not their beliefs, simply because they disagree with you. The basis for that is the standard that you should treat everyone as yourself, and just as you would take offense at someone ridiculing you because of your religious or political beliefs, or demand that you believe something that you do not simply to further their argument, consider the offense that you commit when you do the same.

reply to post by bogomil


Hello, my friend, I have not seen you around for a bit, I hope that you are well.

I agree that there are a number of different things in play with the consideration of religious tolerance, and it would likely surprise some that I am a vehement supporter of the separation of Church and State. When I first came to Christianity, it was as a fundamentalist, but as time went on, I determined that I could no longer remain such, for both theological and political reasons.

If you are unfamiliar, the United States in the mid-1980s was... well, "infected" is probably not the right word, but it will have to do... infected with the political rise of the fundamentalists and evangelicals. (Though I am a member of an evangelical denomination, I am personally not an evangelical.) Although a right leaning centralist, I found this infusion of "Christian values" to be simply wrong, and my reaction was to leave the church, and I went off to find God on my own terms.

The "why" of that is fairly simple, and is the reason that I'm not an evangelist. I believe that God wants people to come to him on their terms, not predicated on force, on fear, on indoctrination, none of that. An honest seeking, that results in a personal relationship which has, at its root, a genuine love -- for God, for others, for doing what is right.

So long as people have a clear and reasonable picture of the Christian faith, at its core (setting aside doctrinal differences,) I think that they have the tools and the path that they need. Going beyond that, persuasion through evangelism, is something that I'm personally not involved in, but it's the view of some, and there are obviously people that find God through it, so whatever.

However, dictating faith, or legislating faith, these are things that I find repellant, and my personal opinion is that God would find it just as offensive.

Of course, the "real" value that people of faith usually don't recognize in keeping Church and State separated is what the Founding Fathers of the United States intended -- not keeping faith out of government, but keeping government out of faith.

Re Adjensen

Quote: [".... why can we not simply accept the second, "love everyone as yourself" and let it go at that?"]

Because while the principle APPEARS to be sound, the actual formulation has a loophole, which can change it into something justifying religionist invasive methods.

Which HAS been done. This is not semantic nitpicking or hypothetical situations.

This semantic shortcoming has already been pointed out earlier on this thread, and is something of a moot-point, when it comes to not only evaluating the various moral systems per se, but also concerning a deeper lying reference frame. I.e. a confrontation between bible-based faith and deductional logic is at a surface level, missing a perspective of social consequences, which should be implied also.

Originally posted by bogomil
Because while the principle APPEARS to be sound, the actual formulation has a loophole, which can change it into something justifying religionist invasive methods.

There is no loop hole here my friend. There are only those who claim to love, but lie because they themselves have not been shown love.

Love is non-judgemental and without condition.

With Love,

Your Brother

Re Adjensen

Our recent posts were sent almost simultaneously so the synchronosity is disturbed as to answers. And by the way, I have actually been around, not long ago on a MIMS thread you also joined.

It doesn't surprise me, that you support separation of church and state; whatever our differences in the past, I have never considered you stupid or un-informed.

I'm somewhat informed on the US situation, though not to any detailed extent, but broadly speaking Europe has had similar historical situations with a religious/political mix, usually leading to confrontations.

Quote: ["I believe that God wants people to come to him on their terms, not predicated on force, on fear, on indoctrination, none of that. An honest seeking, that results in a personal relationship which has, at its root, a genuine love -- for God, for others, for doing what is right."]

An attitude I can only approve of. Exchanging 'god' for whatever I rest my case on and its outcoming answers, I strive to do the same. But then, I don't claim perfection, so I probably fall short often.

Quote: ["So long as people have a clear and reasonable picture of the Christian faith, at its core (setting aside doctrinal differences...]

You see, that may be one of the main problems. You like to tone down the inter/external parts of extremist christianity leading to confrontations; non-believers aren't that assured of it, but see a movement which at its dynamic core (in a social context) is similar to e.g. jihad and some political ideologies. I'm afraid, that just some pacifying words aren't sufficient to remove the non-believers' distrust of christianity.

It's not just a clichée, that 'you have to earn trust'.

Besides many non-believers are quite well-informed on christianity. I have often on ATS been in the situation, where believers not only know next to nothing about logic, science etc, but also seem extra-ordinarily ignorant on their own religion. We have a few present examples of loudmouths, who obviously have been spoon-fed their religion via some local religious authority.

On a note of conciliation I can see, that it's difficult to establish a clear distinction between evangelism and honest information, but on my part I usually let my grumpiness, sarcasm and confrontational attitude be directed at the clear-cut cases of evangelism.

On a recnt thread I saw a comment from a 'moderate' christian to one of the loudmouths (freely recited by me):
"Why don't you shut up? You're making all of us look ridiculous".

That's maybe contemporary christianity's biggest problem.

Re IAM

You wrote:

["There is no loop hole here my friend. There are only those who claim to love, but lie because they themselves have not been shown love."]

Nonetheless it's still a loophole, if it can be misused by those from the 'not best of all worlds'. I'd prefer a version, making it impossible for even those with bad potty-training or too little love, to misuse it.

Relating to what insane extremists can adopt, you have to be very careful about compressed, simplified wisdom. And while I like and hope for your ideal world to manifests, I don't live in a premature pink candy-floss version of it now. As you remember, I'm not that convinced of love conquers all, just like that.

Your friend Bogo.

Originally posted by bogomil
Nonetheless it's still a loophole, if it can be misused by those from the 'not best of all worlds'. I'd prefer a version, making it impossible for even those with bad potty-training or too little love, to misuse it.

Relating to what insane extremists can adopt, you have to be very careful about compressed, simplified wisdom. And while I like and hope for your ideal world to manifests, I don't live in a premature pink candy-floss version of it now. As you remember, I'm not that convinced of love conquers all, just like that.

Your friend Bogo.

I agree with you my friend. That is why it is best to not have wisdom reflected in words, but rather by deeds. All know when someone genuinely is extending love to them. It is not forceful, but merciful, it is not oppressive, but liberating, it is not judgemental, but understanding. Words fail to fully express truelove. It is a wisdom that is felt.

This is my wisdom.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["So long as people have a clear and reasonable picture of the Christian faith, at its core (setting aside doctrinal differences...]

You see, that may be one of the main problems. You like to tone down the inter/external parts of extremist christianity leading to confrontations; non-believers aren't that assured of it, but see a movement which at its dynamic core (in a social context) is similar to e.g. jihad and some political ideologies. I'm afraid, that just some pacifying words aren't sufficient to remove the non-believers' distrust of christianity.

Ah, but that's the problem -- I am not an extremist, but I don't really care if people get put off by them, because, once again, I am neither nurse maid nor arbiter. My belief is right, for me. Yours is right, for you. Awake_and_aware's is right, for him. If you and I concur on something, great. If we don't, and it's a matter of belief, not one of fact, well la-dee-da, because your faith is none of my concern.

That annoys people, for some reason, but it seems to annoy non-believers more than believers (as is sort of evident in this thread.)

But I hope that we can agree that, while extremism in any form is not a good thing, it is foolish to dismiss any subject, purely on the basis of the fact that extremists have some association. I have seen people who are ridiculously over the top on the subject of animal rights or the environment, but this does not prevent me from donating to the Sierra Club or the Humane Society.

On a recnt thread I saw a comment from a 'moderate' christian to one of the loudmouths (freely recited by me):
"Why don't you shut up? You're making all of us look ridiculous".

On the one hand, I agree with that. When people make foolish statements about anything, it reflects poorly on the subject in general. Hitchens, in this video for example, makes atheism look pompous, flippant and intolerant, though I know many atheists who are sensible and humble people.

But on the other hand, if one allows the statements of one person, or even a group of persons, to reflect on something as a whole, dismissing the positions of those who are not "ridiculous", one is guilty of prejudice, and it's their failing, not the failing of others.

I am not a subscriber, in any way, of the claim that "he who shouts the loudest carries the argument." This seems to be the prevailing state of the American political environment, and I have no interest in seeing it apply elsewhere.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re IAM

You wrote:

["There is no loop hole here my friend. There are only those who claim to love, but lie because they themselves have not been shown love."]

Nonetheless it's still a loophole, if it can be misused by those from the 'not best of all worlds'. I'd prefer a version, making it impossible for even those with bad potty-training or too little love, to misuse it.

But surely you can see this as impossible. I agree with IAMIAM -- Christ's teaching is not open to "interpretation" -- it is plain, simple and clear. Love God. Love everyone else. He even goes on to clarify that "everyone else" is, literally, everyone else, not just people you like or associate with, but everyone else.

Someone who distorts that is wrong, plain and simple. They will not, by Christ's words, attain eternal life, because they are not doing what he says you need to do. Whether they delude themselves or others into thinking that they are still in the clear doesn't matter, because they would do so, no matter what the teaching is.

Short of removing independent thought, you cannot formulate anything that cannot be "misused" and the more specific that you become, the wider the loophole is. "Do not kill?" Well, that can be worked around. Hitchens' "Do not imagine"? Child's play. "Love everyone as yourself"? Well, masochists aside, that is pretty black and white.

But the point of all this that you're overlooking is that someone who truly loves, as IAMIAM is saying, who truly loves Christ and wants to do right, that person is NOT going to misinterpret those words. I would go so far as to say that anyone who does, anyone who feels themselves justified in treating others poorly, no matter what that justification is, that person has fundamentally rejected Christ.

It's not my call to make, of course, but I really do think that it is that simple.

reply to post by adjensen

Yes, well, the difficulty of pointing out someone's improper behaviour is that they rarely see it as being wrong.

My behaviour has been adequate for a civil discourse. Just like any other arena of debate; science, politics, sport, medicine - Nothing is free from criticism. Why should religion be any different? If i disagree with some of the historical, logical, moral "truths" in any scripture, I will say why i disagree. If i believe dogma or metaphysical claims to be harmful to society, i will explain my concerns.

I'm not disrespecting charity, love, freedom or anything else.

Am i disrespecting you individually? As a person? No.

and you demand that anyone (such as myself) who disagrees with you hold to that same belief.

I never make demands or commands, that is fascist in nature. I believe everyone has the right to there own opinion. I don't wish you to convert, i have never asked for this. A moral Atheist would never try to convert anyone on their death bed either.

I expect there to be disagreement, that is the essense of debate. I don't see any evidence for a "GOD", you do. We disagree? Is this bigotry on my part? I don't think so.

Setting aside the first, "love God", since you're neither interested in eternal life or following God, why can we not simply accept the second, "love everyone as yourself" and let it go at that?

The Golden Rule is a great moral blueprint to follow but it seems its only as good as the party this is applying to. For sado mascohists like Charles Manson we would have to rationalise the Golden Rule. That's why i believe there is no absolute or objective Morals.

This is summarised in the 2nd video i posted if you'd care to watch and listen to the argument.

Personally, i'm more than happy to replace "Turn off that mobile phone" with "Love everyone as yourself" - Hopefully the previous Hitchens commandments should take psycopaths like Charles Mason into cosnideration.

Because he doesn't want to treat everyone else like himself.

Not at all, he's a lovely man, and civil in discourse to both non-believers and believers. Please watch the debate with Tony Blair. He respects everybody until he has a reason not to.

He reserves the right to belittle and be offensive to those who don't agree with him.

Please, you are really being the bigot here. Christopher Hitchens only criticises that which he understands. He does this with reason and evidence. It is not blind belittling. He's trying to educate and inform his listeners, Both religious and non-religious.

This is not bigotry, Christopher Hitchens is not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I respect every individual person, but ideas arn't automatically respected in debate, They can be challenged this is NOT bigotry. In a social situation, I respect everyone's words, and it would be unwise to start a debate in that situation.

You have a right to argue his points, but don't call him or myself a bigot before you respond to each.

Please, this thread is not about making new commandments and setting them in stone, This is about highlighting that human ethics and understanding can be improved, and it can include non-believers AND believers. We could use these commands as a common guide to maintaining civility amongst our species, without the supernatural beliefs. This is all i am highlight.

For instance, "GOD" could have included a clause stating no person should be owned, slavery is not allowed. But this was no teh case.

It stands in favour of the fact that maybe ancient scripture is "out-of-date".

I'm not saying that because something is old it is to be assumed that it is primitive.

Like i've said earlier. The Native American commands or life guide still seems relative today.

Please, you think i'm attacking you personally, this is not the case. This is a debate of ideas, whether religious or non-religious i have the RIGHT, the FREEDOM to disagree within good reason.

My point for this thread is that morality doesn't come from "on-high" it's developed and formed understandings between people in a society. Morales should be improved if vague or perhaps harmful.