RexTalionis: Like George Carlin, I'm going to condense that down to 1 commandment.

1) Don't be a dick.

Behold, the one commandment. And like the Christians, Jews and Muslims with their 10 Commandments, a lot of atheists can't follow that one, either.

Yup. I was going to phrase it as "be excellent to each other."

Party on, dudes!

This article is already old by internet standards, but what's even more old is atheists thinking they can politely impose a set of rules/commandments on other atheists. Not all of us think like you do, Penn, even if we admire you. And the last thing we need is you implying some sort of dogmatic bullshiat on our freedom.

Thanks for being awesome, but no thanks on the "Commandments". We have no idols, no gods, no belief system. Anybody who implies differently is lacking in education/willfully ignorant.

Unfortunately his commandments are un-Constitutional...!

I'm kidding of course but the number of times I've heard that our laws or Constitution was somehow based on the Bible I start laughing... Half of the Ten Commandments would be un-Constutional if you tried to enforce them, so the idea that our laws are based on them is silly.

•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY
TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.

•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS,
OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE AVENGER
THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.

•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!! (new window)

RexTalionis: Like George Carlin, I'm going to condense that down to 1 commandment.

1) Don't be a dick.

Behold, the one commandment. And like the Christians, Jews and Muslims with their 10 Commandments, a lot of atheists can't follow that one, either.

That is kind of similar to my personal motto of "Do the right thing." (Oh, I hope that Spike Lee does not try to sue me over this!) I had forgotten about George Carlin's "commandment." I think I will now up my commandments to 2.

oogmar: This article is already old by internet standards, but what's even more old is atheists thinking they can politely impose a set of rules/commandments on other atheists. Not all of us think like you do, Penn, even if we admire you.

You have a funny definition of "impose."

I always crack up when jesustards assume the concepts of not murdering anyone, not stealing, not farking another man's wife are somehow unique to the judeo-christian heritage.

Angel of Death: oogmar: This article is already old by internet standards, but what's even more old is atheists thinking they can politely impose a set of rules/commandments on other atheists. Not all of us think like you do, Penn, even if we admire you.

You have a funny definition of "impose."

You have a funny way of dismissing adverbs and previous verbs in a simple statement.

Didn't Immanuel Kant do this already?

oogmar: You have a funny way of dismissing adverbs and previous verbs in a simple statement.

The verb "impose" simply does not apply at all, so it scarcely matters whether we're talking about imposing politely or kindly or thoughtfully or sweetly or lovingly or any other adorable little adverb. As for whether he thinks he can impose, you can not possibly know what he thinks.

randomjsa: Unfortunately his commandments are un-Constitutional...!

I'm kidding of course but the number of times I've heard that our laws or Constitution was somehow based on the Bible I start laughing... Half of the Ten Commandments would be un-Constutional if you tried to enforce them, so the idea that our laws are based on them is silly.

But the ten commandments only make up what, less than a fraction of 1% of the bible? I am not saying that the Constitution nor the majority of our laws are based on the bible, but you cannot deny that some laws are based on the religious beliefs of people. For example, here in Chicago you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday before noon. That law was pushed through by religious people who did not want alcohol being sold while they were heading off to church.

what does it matter, it's not like christians follow the 10 commandments - i mean it doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill (except in texas)' does it?

I have to say that I think Penn Jillette did a much better job than the goat farkers who wrote the old testament. Half of the ten commandments are nothing but rules for perpetuating their own particular mythology. At least all of Jillette's are universal and can be practiced by everyone in the world.

r1niceboy: Didn't Immanuel Kant do this already?

Bentham and Mill did it better.

Angel of Death: oogmar: You have a funny way of dismissing adverbs and previous verbs in a simple statement.

The verb "impose" simply does not apply at all, so it scarcely matters whether we're talking about imposing politely or kindly or thoughtfully or sweetly or lovingly or any other adorable little adverb. As for whether he thinks he can impose, you can not possibly know what he thinks.

I listen to a lot of Penn's thoughts via Penn radio and did for years before the show was canceled, so I know his verbalized thoughts on many subjects, including the ridiculous nature of a unified set of rules for atheists. That's not the point. Him saying "these are 10 atheist commandments" IMPOSES jack shiat on me. I don't have to obey anybody who tells me how I should act without thoroughly evaluating it first and deciding their statements are worthy of acting upon. But if somebody with a much louder public profile than I'll ever have states that he has a behavior system for all non-believers? That's imposing. Polite imposition, but that's what it is.

I'm not sure if English is your first language...?

r1niceboy: Didn't Immanuel Kant do this already?

Yes, but he was a piss-ant.

/And very rarely stable.

r1niceboy: Kant do thi

Yes, but "Don't be a dick" is easier to remember than "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

oogmar: But if somebody with a much louder public profile than I'll ever have states that he has a behavior system for all non-believers? That's imposing. Polite imposition, but that's what it is.

Again, this is simply incompatible with the definition of "impose." Expressing one's solicited opinion on how people should behave, unto itself, without any claim to authority or the threat or use of force, is just not an imposition, polite or otherwise.

RexTalionis: Like George Carlin, I'm going to condense that down to 1 commandment.

1) Don't be a dick.

Behold, the one commandment.

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

/etc

profplump: oogmar: no belief system

I don't know what "we" you speak for, but any self-identifying group in society necessarily has a shared belief system -- how else could you tell if you were a member of the group?

Dude, they're nihilists! They don't believe in anything!

oogmar: This article is already old by internet standards, but what's even more old is atheists thinking they can politely impose a set of rules/commandments on other atheists. Not all of us think like you do, Penn, even if we admire you. And the last thing we need is you implying some sort of dogmatic bullshiat on our freedom.

Thanks for being awesome, but no thanks on the "Commandments". We have no idols, no gods, no belief system. Anybody who implies differently is lacking in education/willfully ignorant.

Can you please quote were Penn said that he was trying to impose these commandments upon anyone? The gist I got was he only created it because Glenn Beck challenged him to do so, not because he wanted to impose them on anyone else in the world. So, got proof to back up your claim that he is trying to impose these commandments on your or anyone else in the world?

profplump: oogmar: no belief system

I don't know what "we" you speak for, but any self-identifying group in society necessarily has a shared belief system -- how else could you tell if you were a member of the group?

I believe... I guess, in the basic evolutionary good nature of humans. I believe that when I go to sleep I'm likely to wake up... I believe that breathing slowly calms me down when I'm stressed. Other than that, it's all facts here. Knowledge, not beliefs. So... by putting my energy behind provable, falsifiable facts I'm subscribing to a "belief"? That repeatable, scientific facts are real, that's somehow... faith? Atheists don't have a common doctrine. We just don't believe in any form of imaginary friend/father/mother/jailer/rapist/conquistador. Other atheists "believe" in ghosts or whatnot, but that doesn't make them any less atheist than I am. All that is required is a lack of belief in a deity. It's not like we all get together once a month and worship Dawkins.

In fact, a number of us are very critical of Dawkins.

KNOWING how Calculus works doesn't make me part of a "belief" system, understanding mythology past and present and science ALSO doesn't make me part of a "belief" system.

ArcadianRefugee: RexTalionis: Like George Carlin, I'm going to condense that down to 1 commandment.

1) Don't be a dick.

Behold, the one commandment.

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

"Do not do unto me as I do unto you." That seems to be the golden rule that far too many christians live by.

Works for me. But will drive my wife's family batshiat crazy.

RexTalionis: Like George Carlin, I'm going to condense that down to 1 commandment.

1) Don't be a dick.

Behold, the one commandment. And like the Christians, Jews and Muslims with their 10 Commandments, a lot of atheists can't follow that one, either.

Done in farking one. Well done Rex, I came here in a dire mood and you quashed it.

Mock26: randomjsa: Unfortunately his commandments are un-Constitutional...!

I'm kidding of course but the number of times I've heard that our laws or Constitution was somehow based on the Bible I start laughing... Half of the Ten Commandments would be un-Constutional if you tried to enforce them, so the idea that our laws are based on them is silly.

But the ten commandments only make up what, less than a fraction of 1% of the bible? I am not saying that the Constitution nor the majority of our laws are based on the bible, but you cannot deny that some laws are based on the religious beliefs of people. For example, here in Chicago you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday before noon. That law was pushed through by religious people who did not want alcohol being sold while they were heading off to church.

I believe the Sunday thing is just a remnant of Prohibition 1.0. After it was repealed, a lot of states turned around and tried to institute it on a state level. It was mostly smacked down but it malingers through blue laws.

I've always wondered what the no-alchohol-Sundays thing was supposed to do. I mean, there has to be some sort of logic, no matter how tenuous to have survived this long.

Maybe fundies think all those drunks will wake up Sunday morning and go, "well, got nothing to do and the liquor store is closed, guess I'll go to church ..."

AverageAmericanGuy: r1niceboy: Didn't Immanuel Kant do this already?

Bentham and Mill did it better.

By classifying pleasure and pain and doing a sum to find out if the over/under means it's righteous? I think that qualifies as doing it completely differently, and worse. I'm Scottish and think the Scottish enlightenment philosophers were idiots to run with the ball that Bentham dropped. Human's hardly can be placed on the moral level of my dog, who doesn't piss in the house because he'll be sleeping overnight otherwise. That's a simplistic view of utilitarianism, but my dog has a short memory.

Angel of Death: oogmar: But if somebody with a much louder public profile than I'll ever have states that he has a behavior system for all non-believers? That's imposing. Polite imposition, but that's what it is.

Again, this is simply incompatible with the definition of "impose." Expressing one's solicited opinion on how people should behave, unto itself, without any claim to authority or the threat or use of force, is just not an imposition, polite or otherwise.

You know, that's fair. However, your average internet user (OBVIOUSLY NOT US, RIGHT)(maybe) will read the headline without the content and use this as "proof" that atheism is somehow some movement/religion with rules/dogma when that is absolutely the opposite of the truth.

I love Penn, don't get me wrong, I often disagree with him but I love listening to him think aloud... But his words WILL be laid upon other atheists now that "God, No!" is out. I did not mean to imply that he's somehow... oppressing me, but that his words can become so public and he is putting down "commandments" like atheism is a farking religion? Thanks for another point I'll have to refute ENDLESSLY, Penn. THANKS.

+

r1niceboy: AverageAmericanGuy: r1niceboy: Didn't Immanuel Kant do this already?

Bentham and Mill did it better.

By classifying pleasure and pain and doing a sum to find out if the over/under means it's righteous? I think that qualifies as doing it completely differently, and worse. I'm Scottish and think the Scottish enlightenment philosophers were idiots to run with the ball that Bentham dropped. Human's hardly can be placed on the moral level of my dog, who doesn't piss in the house because he'll be sleeping overnight otherwise. That's a simplistic view of utilitarianism, but my dog has a short memory.

Is Kant's Categorical Imperative anything more than a pre-determined set of Utilitarian sums that are particularly amenable to Kant himself?

oogmar: Thanks for another point I'll have to refute ENDLESSLY, Penn. THANKS.

Only if you insist on futilely arguing with idiots. I love to argue, don't get me wrong, but I try to restrict it to arguing with people who will understand and be receptive to an alternative idea. A religious nut isn't going to change his mind, about his own beliefs or about what he perceives as yours.

Its awfully easy to say "Don't be a dick" but awfully hard to define what that means.. It surely doesn't mean "never offend anyone", because sometime people need to be offended. It doesn't mean "harm no-one" as there is in the end a time when harming someone is the right recourse. It usually means "Don't say things that *I* don't like" which is not helpful at all.

The reality is, like most platitudes, It doesn't actually mean anything.. and those who say it invariably turn out to act like dicks themselves sometimes.

Pancoaifo: Mock26: randomjsa: Unfortunately his commandments are un-Constitutional...!

I'm kidding of course but the number of times I've heard that our laws or Constitution was somehow based on the Bible I start laughing... Half of the Ten Commandments would be un-Constutional if you tried to enforce them, so the idea that our laws are based on them is silly.

But the ten commandments only make up what, less than a fraction of 1% of the bible? I am not saying that the Constitution nor the majority of our laws are based on the bible, but you cannot deny that some laws are based on the religious beliefs of people. For example, here in Chicago you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday before noon. That law was pushed through by religious people who did not want alcohol being sold while they were heading off to church.

I believe the Sunday thing is just a remnant of Prohibition 1.0. After it was repealed, a lot of states turned around and tried to institute it on a state level. It was mostly smacked down but it malingers through blue laws.

I've always wondered what the no-alchohol-Sundays thing was supposed to do. I mean, there has to be some sort of logic, no matter how tenuous to have survived this long.

Maybe fundies think all those drunks will wake up Sunday morning and go, "well, got nothing to do and the liquor store is closed, guess I'll go to church ..."

Your point has merit, but it would depend on whether or not the blue laws were put in place years ago or are recent laws or even preceded prohibition. An interesting example is Evanston, IL. As far back as the early 1800s it was illegal to sell any alcohol within 4 miles of Northwestern University, and that law stayed in effect until 1972!

Like you I often wonder about blue laws. The Sunday blue laws strike me as being derived from religious beliefs, but who can really say? Maybe the fundies are worried that they will be tempted and will stop by a liquor stoe to pick up a fifth of Jack on the way to church.

Angel of Death: oogmar: Thanks for another point I'll have to refute ENDLESSLY, Penn. THANKS.

Only if you insist on futilely arguing with idiots. I love to argue, don't get me wrong, but I try to restrict it to arguing with people who will understand and be receptive to an alternative idea. A religious nut isn't going to change his mind, about his own beliefs or about what he perceives as yours.

I guess there's a level of debate and a level of argument. If people are a) atheists who need to protect "beliefs" or b) believers who think atheists can be converted with the use of 'holy' texts ... they aren't people worth arguing OR debating with. Atheists don't believe, we know. An uneducated atheist is simply an agnostic deist wishing they knew how the world worked while being too lazy to follow through with some education.

However, A) I enjoy being right (and when I'm only arguing in facts, that's not difficult) and B) I don't think theists are by default idiots. I hope that if presented with the facts enough times, they'll realize that a belief in a very specific higher power is simply ignorant. That path leads to deism... and then atheism. All it takes is a little critical thinking and some working through a lot of cognitive dissonance.