An Athiests 10 Commandments

Richard Dawkins EbonMusings.org came up with the following “New Ten Commandments”:

(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

(6) Always seek to be learning something new.

(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

(8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

(10) Question everything.

Advertisements

Software developer by day, scale model builder and wargamer by night.

Posted in Atheism, Quote Of The Day
56 comments on “An Athiests 10 Commandments
  1. Stephen says:

    Interesting. Is this from his new book? I still haven’t finished it.

  2. Matt says:

    Sounds pretty good to me. If everyone could stick to those, the world would be an awesome place to live.

  3. Coops says:

    “If everyone could stick to those, the world would be an awesome place to live.”

    – A bit like the effect of the Christian 10 Commanments, right?

    BTW you might find http://www.dechurched.com/athiest.htm amusing 😛

  4. Matt says:

    Same effect but a much better way of going about it. No silly imaginary friends you need to worship, no mention of craving your neighbour’s ass, etc.

    This list is a lot better.

  5. Stephen says:

    George Carlin has a great take on the Commandments.

  6. Richard@Home says:

    “no mention of craving your neighbour’s ass”

    I almost snorted my coffee threw my nose when I read that 😀

  7. […] an atheist website there is a set of New Ten Commandments. The first two are : ‘Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you’ and ‘In […]

  8. Maurice says:

    1.) If you “loved your enemies” wouldn’t one automatically do his “new” 10 commandments?

    2.) He says to “Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice”.

    Notions of evil and Justice are nebulous and arbitrary at best without the concept of a deity. Or else, they are simply opinions.

  9. Richard@Home says:

    “1.) If you “loved your enemies” wouldn’t one automatically do his “new” 10 commandments?”

    No

    “Notions of evil and Justice are nebulous and arbitrary at best without the concept of a deity. Or else, they are simply opinions.”

    No

  10. Richard@Home says:

    If you need some external force to tell you what is right and wrong, then I’m afraid you have no concept of what is right and wrong.

    If your ‘advisor’ told you it was good to rape and murder, would you?

  11. Richard@Home says:

    This idea that a god is the only person capable of deciding what is right and wrong is fundamentally flawed.

    Do you think the nutters who flew plains into the WTC believed they were doing right or wrong? The were, after all, just doing *their* gods will.

  12. Maurice says:

    >If you need some external force to tell you what is right and wrong, then I’m afraid you have no concept of what is right and wrong.

    Interesting opinion, but it is circular.

    Concepts of right or wrong are by definition a moral concept. Are in and of themselves opinion as well. And we are all equal in terms of our rights to an opinion.

    Thus the elevation of an opinion to the level of a moral code depends on the authority of he who opines. In other words, he who as greater authority, and by extension, the greatEST authority, wins.

    >If your ‘advisor’ told you it was good to rape and murder, would you?

    Since my advisor as already said I should not rape or murder I can only assume your question is purely hypothetical. And thus utterly meaningless.

    Lets put the VERY same question to you. Since you admit you are the one who determines what is moral, I ask you this: If your conscience told you “it was good to rape and murder, would you?”.

    >This idea that a god is the only person capable of deciding what is right and wrong is fundamentally flawed.

    How so? Without getting into the secondary debate as to his existence or not, please explain. For the question pre-supposes an assumption that he does exist.

    >Do you think the nutters who flew plains into the WTC believed they were doing right or wrong? The were, after all, just doing *their* gods will

    Objection: The question is a statement, not a question. Objection: The question is not valid.

    Notwithstanding the above I answer this. What they believed in their own conscious stands apart from the objective truth as to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the act.

  13. Maurice says:

    What no comeback?

  14. Maurice says:

    Question:

    If I am an atheist, indeed, if I live in the jungles somewhere, and have never heard the notion of the Christian God, and we(I and my people) come up with the notion that Homosexuality is wrong, am I still wrong?

  15. Richard@Home says:

    That depends on your reasoning behind why Homosexuality is wrong. And how you came to that decision.

    My main problem with religion in respect to how rules/laws are made, is that in most cases the following happens:

    One of your tribe wandered off into the desert and came back two days later and pronounced ‘I have received a vision from the Mighty Desert God: From this day forward Homosexuality is a wrong! Anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic and an unbeliever!’

    If however, your whole tribe had got together in public and had a discussion about it. Raised and countered points, looked at the evidence; the social, the medical, and came to an informed, rational decision I’d respect that.

    I may not agree with whichever decision you make, but I would be able to examine your evidence, and your findings based on that evidence and question it without being branded a heretic.

    As it happens, I think homosexuality is fine. Not for me, but I would never impinge on anyone’s right to do whatever the heck they like with whoever they like so long as both parties are happy with it.

  16. Maurice says:

    Morality is much more than that. Morality is When a group, or even an individual, says an act is moral or not moral AND that the act is universally wrong. Not just wrong for him or his group, but wrong for everyone everywhere.

    Now one can argue that this idea is ridiculous from the git go but that is besides the point. The point is that the person(s) who moralizes has basically stretch human reach and consciousness beyond their own selves into a much wider realm. This is an amazing concept!

    As I said before, all human ideas of right and wrong are opinions. The only thing that graduates an opinion to a moral code is authority. This ties into why I say a Deity is needed for any moral code. Only a Deity, whether actual or invented, can backup a moral code with it’s own authority. Because only a Deity’s authority can cross beyond one’s own group into another thus making the code objective.

    In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
    created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..”

    Who says all men are created equal? Jefferson? Who cares what Jefferson says?! Answer: no one. That is why he had to back up the statement with a Deity.

    Without a Deity it would be logical to question the basic foundations of all societies. Cherished ideas of justice, democracy, equal rights are very nebulous. The animal kingdom has no such ideals. It is either kill or be killed. Take or be taken from.

    Even when animals “share” it is only for the benefit of the sharer. A male monkey may share his banana with a female monkey but only because he wants to procreate. He doesn’t even think he is “sharing”. Even something so easily understood by us is way beyond his comprehension.

    Therefore, it makes more sense to argue that the whole concept of morality is foolishness than to argue that one can have morality without a Deity.

  17. Maurice says:

    That’s a fair answer. But it does not address the concept of morality. What you described is legality. The two are similar in some sense but alien in others.

    Legality is when a group or society determines what is right or wrong for their society or group only.

  18. Maurice says:

    Note: Paragraph’s “That’s a fair answer.” and “Legality is when a..” belongs above “Morality is much more than that. Morality”.

    Sorry for the confusion.

  19. Dawkins didn’t write these; the original source is http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/new10c.html . Dawkins himself says so in “The God Delusion”, quoting that page as the source.

  20. Richard@Home says:

    Apologies Pedro, and thanks for supplying the correction 🙂

  21. Guillermo Barreto says:

    I am finishing reading the God Delusion by Dawkins, and I am fascinated by the facts presented about the stories of the Old Testament. If the stories in the Old Testament are true then Christianity’s God is very evil. As we were trained in hand to hand combat by the US Army before going to Vietnam, we were ordered to shout as we launch our bayonet to a doll Kill a gook for God. I believe Christians have adopted the wrong God; we need to reconsider who God is and if we can not prove his/her existence, then that is great, let us leave a life of peace.

  22. Maurice says:

    >If the stories in the Old Testament are true then Christianity’s God is very evil

    Please elaborate – How is the God of the OT “evil”?

  23. Richard@Home says:

    You have read the Old Testament haven’t you Maurice?

  24. Maurice says:

    Yes I have read the OT. But I try to read it without super-imposing my 21st century morality. Because many times people try to pull things wayyyy out of context then try to compare it with today.

    Another thing I have noticed is that people read into it, their own predjudices rather than letting the text speak from itself.

    That is why I ask for elaboration.

  25. Maurice says:

    This is not a trick question. I have always wanted to ask an Atheist these type questions but have not due to fear of an negative reaction. Also, I know very few atheist. So please indulge me.

    Question for the Atheist: If God revealed Himself to you, with the strict proof that you require, and that He is the God of the Bible, would you abandon your previous ideas and convictions and adopt the Bible’s values?

    If no, what words would you use to tell God you are not interested?

  26. Richard@Home says:

    Hi Maurice.

    I can’t speak for every Atheist, only myself. If your god, or any other god/goddess come to that, chose to reveal himself to me and could prove to me that he wasn’t a hallucination I would believe in him/her/them. In much the same way I believe in aeroplanes and chairs.

    Worshipping him/her/them would take a bit more effort on their part. He/she/they would have to convince me that they were worthy of my worship. They would need to prove that they still have an active role. ie, they answered prayers, healed the sick, etc.

    Threatening me that I had to worship him or face eternity in boiling oil does not sound like the kind of offer a compassionate, all loving god would make to me. If he truly loved me, he would accept me for who I was and the person I had become.

    As to the bible, as I’ve said before: I don’t think it is a sound, rational or moral set of guidelines to live your life by. That’s why it is so open to interpretation, but that perspective is based on the premise that there is (or is highly unlikely that there is) no god.

    Even if it was divine in origin that doesn’t alter the fact I believe it’s wrong to stone an adulteress or a homosexual to death or any of the hundreds of other issues I have with its ‘laws’.

    So, no… I’d believe in him, I might even worship him, but I would not live my life according to all the laws laid down in the bible.

  27. Maurice says:

    Yes, the judgment given to Israel to stone an Adulterer and other sins are harsh sometimes.

    It’s funny but Jesus saved the life of a woman caught in Adultery once. The mob was going to stone her as was required by the law. Yet he gave her mercy.

    What do you think about that quality?

    Also, Jesus commanded his followers not to harm people who did not agree with his message. Please give me your comments on that as well.

  28. Richard@Home says:

    I think the quality of forgiveness is a human quality. Not a divine one. Just as I think that Jesus (if he ever existed) was just a man.

    He had a couple of good ideas (better at least that the god of the old testament) and preached a pretty good set of moral guidelines.

    I’d be more inclined to base my life on the New Testament moral code than the old testament, but I cannot reconcile that both sets of guidelines came from the same source. They are too wildly dissimilar.

    “It’s funny but Jesus saved the life of a woman caught in Adultery once. The mob was going to stone her as was required by the law. Yet he gave her mercy.”

    Its funny because the law he (if he truly was the son of god) was so against was one of his own laws! He is the father/son/holy ghost after all. God is perfect, and can never make a mistake. How can he be wrong in the old testament and right in the new?

    As to ‘giving her mercy’: He didn’t give her mercy, he caused the crowd to give mercy by pointing out that no-one is perfect.

    He appealed to them using those very same ideas the Atheist commandments that started this conversation cover: (1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you, (2) In all things, strive to cause no harm, (3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

    “Also, Jesus commanded his followers not to harm people who did not agree with his message. Please give me your comments on that as well.”

    Its a very great shame that a lot of his followers are ignoring this command eh?

  29. Maurice says:

    >New Testament moral code than the old testament, but I cannot reconcile that both sets of guidelines came from the same source.

    I have said before, the OT’s main theme is God dealing with a nation. The NT is God dealing with individuals. So they have to be evaluated with this in mind. See below for more information.

    >Its funny because the law he (if he truly was the son of god) was so against was one of his own laws! .. How can he be wrong in the old testament and right in the new?

    Well to reconcile both we have to consider the context of the events that led up to the woman almost being stoned. The law, any law, is a legal set of codes written for the purpose of the nation. Now among other purposes, laws are meant to PREVENT individuals from executing judgment on their own. In effect the law is the anti-thesis of vigilantism.

    These persons were vigilantes bent on executing their own judgment. Therefore, they had no legal basis to stone the woman. Jesus knew this. At best they should have turned her over to the proper authorities for judgment. Kind of like what happened to Jesus. He was hauled before a court.

    And finally, from a moral perspective, they were acting in a highly self righteous manner in wanting to kill the woman. This disgusted Jesus. That is why he pulled a “Jedi Mind trick” on them. In effect, he pulled a mirror out and allowed them to see their own wicked condition and that they were in no position to “cast any stone”.

    As a matter of fact, throughout the NT, people are admonished to “judge no man” but to “judge a righteous judgment”. Now this doesn’t mean we aren’t to identify wrong doings and to take proper action, but the emphasis is on the word “judge”. we are talking a self righteous condemning attitude here. One that considers no mercy.

    >He appealed to them using those very same ideas the Atheist commandments

    As I have stated earlier, most of the atheist commandments have their precedent in religious text such as the NT. But they are cleverly re-worded to give an “air” of originality. You yourself say: “He appealed to them using those very same ideas..”. So if they are the same ideas, which came 1st?

    >Its a very great shame that a lot of his followers are ignoring this command eh?

    Yes, it is a shame. Jesus also said that not everyone who calls Him Lord would enter Heaven. That is one of the reasons why I ceased being Catholic.

  30. Maurice says:

    Funny how every time the theist makes a good argument he gets no response.

    I get no response on my argument about a Deity’s authority being needed for morality.

    I get no response on my argument about reconciling the NT and OT commandments.

    ?? No more pontification.

    Counter respond with counter points to each and every argument and point I make.

  31. Peter J says:

    This is just a weaker version of what Jesus said.
    “Do unto others” (the original) is a commandment to action, not inaction … if i saw someone in need, only Jesus’s version would command me to help them.
    These are not “new”, just slightly modified to add the “question everything” one (and related)

  32. Richard@Home says:

    Hey Peter, thanks for dropping by 🙂

    I don’t disagree that there are a lot of good messages in the New Testemement. And whether or not ‘Jesus’ or ‘Odin’ or ‘Zeus’ said them doesn’t matter. It’s the message that’s important, not the messenger.

    I don’t want to start another big debate about the good/bad of religion. How about we all agree on the message irrespective of the motive behind it?

    Maybe if we can all start to do that there will be a few less dead bodies messing up the place eh? 😉

  33. Maurice says:

    Actually, if the NT is clear about one thing is that the messenger is the **point**. Without Him, the message is just another human sentiment wrap up in the package of a philosophy.

  34. ibbo says:

    out of interest, how does the NT discriminate between the “point” and just another human sentiment made up my someone writing a passage of text?

  35. ibbo says:

    um by*

  36. Richard@Home says:

    “Actually, if the NT is clear about one thing is that the messenger is the **point**. Without Him, the message is just another human sentiment wrap up in the package of a philosophy.”

    … so you’re saying the message is irrelevant/unimportant? Why did they bother writing it down then?

  37. Maurice says:

    I am not saying the message is not a good for humanity. On the contrary, anything from God is always good for man.

    All I am saying is that we must understand that the NT does not stop at the message and that’s it. Some, unfortunetly, make that mistake thereby reducing its power to a mere philosophical world view – one of many. And without the man, that’s exactly what it is.

    But to answer your question:

    “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
    the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
    (John 20:31)

    And that’s it, that’s the *point*. The agenda.., the main *thrust*, if you will, is about the Man.

  38. Nelson says:

    I could spend an afternoon of fun and discussion with you…I can rattle your neurons on a positive way…Nels…

  39. Maurice, all of your arguments are fundamentally flawed, your lack of responses is probably due to these being amply covered elsewhere on the web.

    Atheists fundamentally, value all individuals equally, along with their individual choices, values and opinions. Evolution has no concept of “authority of opinion” other than a measurable fitness-for-purpose.

    Therefore the N10C are a set of moral/ethical guidelines that an individual is free to choose or not-choose. Note: not-choosing is a perfectly acceptable answer.

    The points suggest an “intelligent” human should be any be prepared to analyse and debate with themselves (at least) any of their chosen or not chosen beliefs (Points 8 & 9), and not follow someone else’s values or opinions (Point 9). So the N10C themselves are expected to be analysed and debated, they don’t declare themselves as “just right”. Period.

    Now we can philosophise on the relativity of “harm” and meaning meaning of “evil”, but considering points 1), 2) & 3) you and I can probably probably agree at the very least, a baseline definition that we are both ethically & intellectually comfortable with. Two humans have just agreed on some common values & standards we can live by, no deity was needed, nor some imagined “authority of opinion”.

    I don’t to mug old ladies because it is illegal, or it would embarrass my family if caught, I choose not to because I, as an individual, find those values & behaviours unacceptable. coincidently they comply with Points 1), 2) & 3)

    The N10C are really nothing more than a circular set of ethical living values. By debating and disagreeing with them you enter at Point 10 – “Question Everything”, from there you are free to evaluate, adopt or ignore any or all of the other 9 Points – or indeed any other values. Of course you could choose to dispute Point 10 as well – but then you and I wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    […]Thus the elevation of an opinion to the level of a moral code depends on the authority of he who opines.[…]
    No. I am an intelligent individual, I choose and I alone choose whether my choices, values and opinions are indeed “moral”. Note. This doesn’t stop my society from judging me as being immoral by some other collective value set, and they are nor more “right” or “wrong” than me.

    […]only a Deity’s authority can cross beyond one’s own group into another thus making the code objective.[…]
    No, I engage the millions of years of evolution in between my ears and decide if I the individual find the code moral and objective.

    […]I get no response on my argument about a Deity’s authority being needed for morality.[…]
    Done:
    Religion == Absolute Morality
    Atheist == Personal Morality

    […]I have said before, the OT’s main theme is God dealing with a nation. The NT is God dealing with individuals.[…]
    Is it? I would need evidence of that. His 10 Commandments don’t appear to clarify that position.

    […]Therefore, they had no legal basis to stone the woman. Jesus knew this.[…]
    Are you suggesting Jesus intervened because the actions were illegal not because he found the act of stoning itself unethical or immoral?

    Thus the corollary is, Jesus/God/Et al thought the act of stoning was “moral” but “illegal” in the eyes of Jesus’s society. Consequently there is actually no need to reconcile OT/NT as God still believes stoning a woman to death if she’s an adulterer is a moral act.

    If Jesus was indeed acting out of a moral code, then “God’s” moral position on stoning adulterers appears to have changed. Thus the original question stands.
    The OT Nation Building argument also doesn’t resolve why “Thalt shall not kill” applies to a group acting in a “highly self righteous manner” but not to a Society’s legal laws re: stoning adulterers.

    […]I get no response on my argument about reconciling the NT and OT commandments.[…]
    You haven’t reconciled the NT and OT in anyway in my view

    […]Who says all men are created equal? Jefferson? Who cares what Jefferson says?! Answer: no one. That is why he had to back up the statement with a Deity.[…]
    No, there is excellent evidence that Jefferson was an atheist and fundamentally believed in the separation of church and state and disagreed with that statement.

    “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10)

  40. BTW @Marice
    […]
    >Do you think the nutters who flew plains into the WTC believed they were doing right or wrong? The were, after all, just doing *their* gods will

    Objection: The question is a statement, not a question. Objection: The question is not valid.[…]

    According to you it’s not a question therefore how can it be “invalid”

    As you said it’s a statement, agree or disagree with it but you have “no authority of opinion” to classify it as invalid.

  41. Richard@Home says:

    Great post Neil, some nicely worded and presented thoughts.

  42. Rew says:

    Thanks for taking the time to write and post these.

    How can any religious person think athiests are crazy, harmful or disrespectful after reading that?…. oh wait, they won’t read it will they lol!!

  43. db queen says:

    the 10 comm. are nice and who could disagree? but like the olde testament version, its through the use of obvious truths people are sucked into superstition.
    a christian friend once said to me that “since i didnt believe in the final judgement i was free to rob and kill at will”. i told him that society and civilization itself depended on us all being civil to each other.
    he said “well if there is no afterlife then your life has no meaning”.
    in my mind, i explained, since there is no afterlife then this existance had ultimate importance. an afterlife would make the short life on earth unimportant.
    the wish for an utopian world of love and good will might work if there 10 humans on each continent until drought or famine endangered the 10 people on one of the continents. cause the the threatened tribe would rationalise that war on the neighbors was all that could save the 10 smart monkeys of their tribe.
    this is not wrong it is nature, the need to survive to recreate. DQ

  44. Deckard says:

    Those ten commandments are awsome!
    I also know many who believe there is no god,and those awsome commandments don’t seem to apply to them. They all seem to think because there probably is nothing after life – they can kick everyone who is in there way – becasue they have made themselves a litte god who is above all others.
    Please get over your world peace and and your brilliant logic and knock on the door that is awaiting to be opened.

    1Co 1:19 “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars.”
    1Co 1:20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world’s wisdom is foolishness!
    1Co 1:21 For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called “foolish” message we preach, God decided to save those who believe.

    You will never have God’s wisdom until you humbly go to Him and knock at His door, then He will answer you, then you can chuck those commandments away that were written over a cup of coffee one morning, and you can join the rest of us (not thosewho practice relgion, but those who believe in nothing more than the truth of the Holy Bible) who enjoy an actual personel relationship with the real God, who answers back.

    You can then begin to smile again knowing you have a safe place to go to when you die, if you will accept Jesus Christ as your savior.

  45. […] "Los 10 mandamientos ateos" por Richard Dawkins (ING)richardathome.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/an-athiests-10-comman… por jm22381 hace pocos segundos […]

  46. Andrew says:

    about #2…
    Should we perhaps amend it to “in all things, strive to minimize harm” ? “strive to cause no harm” omits our moral obligations to reduce harm whenever possible, doesn’t it?

  47. that one girl says:

    umm…you do know that except for the 8th and 10th commandment, these are basically the christian commandments, right?

    christianity does not promote hatred or violence, it’s people who see it as an excuse.
    those people are usually very vocal and straight-forward,so they’re likely to get more attention.

    also i dunno why you athiests insist on your ideas that god has to be an old man in the clouds.
    even the bible depicts him as having no real physical shape,and appears as what he pleases to different people.(even though he’s supposed to have created humans in his own true form)

    why do you assume all christians are too stupid to accept science or have a more complex view of god?
    because the pope says so?
    the pope has to say these things, otherwise it’d sound like he himself doesn’t believe in the bible,and it’d cause massive uproar.

    this is like working at an advertising agency: you promote a certain product. even if you don’t like or use certain product, you will say you do, since these are the company’s policies, and you’re fired if you don’t.

    also most of these ideas that you hate so much -dissing abortion,homosexuals,forced marriage,etc . were all needed and welcomed back when the bible was written.

    you really need to study anthropology if you think the bible was against homosexuals out of mere spite.

    so yes, there’s a lot more to it than “god told me/her/him”, and for those who don’t know/believe that, then you shouldn’t be called “worthy” of any belief/disbelief.

  48. gregory says:

    the Internet is the ultimate atheist, in which all personal moral opinions have voice. luckily, the Internet also allows each of its users to read and scoff; to discard and forget much of the trash that one reads. though scrolling is often employed, it does not claim to be Holy Writ. interestingly enough, however, it actually *is* the End of Knowledge (even if, like all scriptures, it is only as advanced as is the date at which the information is passed on). if we could read the many examples of cross-cultural scripture in the same way and with the same skepticism that we approach the Internet, I wonder how much more balanced we might be?

    While some of the general information edifies, unfortunately, entirely too much personal, inter-tribal muck gets in the way.

    If. after a good deal of comparative, inclusive study, a person still finds that (s)he prefers theism, I am in no place to interfere. Kindly, however, maintain the ENTIRE separation of Law and Personal Theology.

    This is all I ask.

    It is not up to a god (so long as s/he chooses to maintain physically absent from a legislative body) to hand down law; indeed, so long as god actively remains immaterial, we can only assume that “god’s law” was written by a people with an agenda, the same as is any other law. citizens who relinquish their voice in favor of theocrazy, relinquish their free will, and, unfortunately, thus, their humanity.

    I do not chose to be controlled by that paradigm. I will argue until I’ve no breath–or, as theocrazy no doubt will insist, fight to my death if it is required of me–that we might maintain the forward motion of a society in which the dignity of personal discernment (so long as it harm none) is honored.

  49. […] An Athiests 10 Commandments Someone has put forward an atheists 10 commandments. […]

  50. […] Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. My tweeting prompted one reader to send me the ‘Atheist 10 Commandments’, which were (inaccurately?) attributed to Richard Dawkins. What do you make of these moral precepts? […]

  51. Atheist 10 commandments says:

    Jesus already said all of these things! These commandments aren’t atheist at all.

  52. Ferdi Barnard says:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you Richard, for making sense to my existence on this earth…you have made my life worth living…albeit harder, with all the creationists around in South Africa…but your books bring solace, and I devour them, although my brain sometimes tilts and I battle to understand…but the seed is firmly planted…excuse the pun…please keep it up!

  53. richard holroyd says:

    Im trying to work out the difference between Richards “Ten Commandments and the overall teaching of the Bible…

  54. yacoub samake says:

    thanks rich ones i was blind now i can see

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: