So, in the previous post we looked at the first three of these Atheist ten “non-commandments” which the site addicting info declared were “better”, to which no one is dogmatically bound, which raises all sorts of problems that they didn’t seem to consider. So in this post we’ll look at a few more and make some comments on them.
This one by a Chris Lager seems to be the point where the wheels begin to fall off,
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
Why: This includes a person\”s right to not be murdered, raped, imprisoned without just cause (violating another person\’s rights), kidnapped, attacked, tortured, etc. This also protects a person\’s freedom of speech and freedom to dress and represent themselves as they so choose.
Ok, notice that a person has a right not to be, “murdered, raped, imprisoned without just cause (violating another person\’s rights), kidnapped, attacked, tortured, etc.” Now, why? What in the atheistic, materialistic worldview gives a person the “right” for these things not to occur? Why are these things even wrong? I would assert that, if they were honest, in a Darwinistic mindset, if doing these actions means that my genes get into the next generation, then it logically follows that murder, rape, and kidnapping are perfectly reasonable things to occur. And if it means securing those facts, imprisoning someone is also perfectly right.
Moving along, this one, by a John Rosso, immediately exposes why it was chosen,
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
Why: When one does a good deed it isn’t because God tells one to do a good deed, but because one simply wants to be good person. As Human beings we are capable of defining our own, different, meanings for our lives, with or without a god.
How does anyone know then what is “good”? And notice that he is presuppositions that this life is all that there is without actually justifying the assumption, so I would like to ask how he knows that, because if anything that comes before influences what follows, like the Decalogue that is revealed in Scripture, then this assertion is necessarily false because we cannot rewind a person’s life and experiment on it. Furthermore, if, as he asserts, “Human beings“,–notice the capitalized “H”–,”are capable of defining [their] own, different, meanings for [their] lives“, why is it that a serial killer can’t define his life the way he or she chooses? Hmmm…
Jamie Andrews put this one forward,
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
Why: It may sound obvious, but negligence and refusal to take responsibility are an immense source of harm in the world, from interpersonal relations to Global issues.
Again, why, if these people are truly materialists, does this even matter? Actions have consequences, yes, absolutely, but if all that we are, are highly evolved animals then why push such things as responsibility? I had a dog that had puppies, and she abandoned them. Fortunately I had another dog, who had recently miscarried her puppies who took up their care, but I didn’t hold the mother who abandoned her puppies responsible because dogs and cats do this all the time in nature. I have yet to hear a logical and consistent reason, from an atheist, as to why we should hold humans responsible for similar actions.
So, we’re going to put a pin in this for the moment and reflect on the fact that as we get deeper into the worldview these “non-commandments” are becoming more incoherent from the worldview from which they emerge. Until the next post.