Panta Pei

1. Be Good
2. Be Good At It
3. Eat Chocolate
4. Have Toe-Curling Sex
5. Have more 4.
6. See 5
7. Die

So let it be written...so let it be done!

Stephen T-B

No good Panta Pie. I can’t eat chocolate. (Not much, anyway.)
CaprtainDave and Buffman: If number one (Respecting and cherishing every individual's right to life and liberty - except when they seek to deprive others of the same) sounds good but doesn’t mean much, then drop it.
(“Right” I don’t have a problem with, but “respecting and cherishing” I do because different people have different ideas as to what these are.)
“Integrity” I agree, is a non-runner. My dictionary defines it as “Uprightness, honesty and sincerity” which would be a challenge to anyone who happened to be having illicit sex with the spouse of a best friend - and I don’t think that being an atheist ought to get in the way of such an eventuality.)
So the Free Thinkers’ Statement of Intent might go as follows:
1. I accept full responsibility for my words and actions...or silence and inaction.
2. I will be guided by fact over fiction.
3. I will not allow passion to overrule principle.
4. I will promote and practice kindness and compassion.
5. I will endeavour to improve myself and society.

Panta Pei

Amended to change "chocolate" to "dessert" in honor of Stephen.


PS I am so glad that was the only amendment

CaptainDave

"The Seven Pillars of Purpose and Peace"

(Supported by the ******[enter the name of whichever organization reprints and posts the list].

1. Respecting and cherishing every individual's right to life and liberty - except when they seek to deprive others of the same.

2. Accepting full responsibility for one's words and actions...or silence and inaction.

3. Conducting oneself with integrity.

4. Being guided by fact over fiction.

5. Placing principles before passions.

6. Promoting and practicing kindness and compassion where ever and when ever possible.

7. Improving oneself and society within the means available.


I don't think deleting 1 & 3 is an option. These sentiments are critical. Removing them results in a very weak document which would be attacked on what it leaves out.

I don't think there is any way to express the sentiments of 1 & 3 in a few sentences without being somewhat vague. It's something I think we'll have live with.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]</p>

Buffman

Stephen T-B

(“Right” I don’t have a problem with, but “respecting and cherishing” I do because different people have different ideas as to what these are.)

As you have read, our first cut at a list was formulated around offering the last six biblical Commandments in a more modern fashion that would be acceptable for non-theists as well as theists. In this particular case it was the "Thou shalt not kill" (cherish life)and "Honor thy father and mother"...and everyone deserving that honor (respect). I agree that each person may elect to apply their own interpretation to those words; but I'm not so sure that that is such a bad thing. I think that it allows for broader appreciation, understanding, and thus to greater appeal.

“Integrity” I agree, is a non-runner. My dictionary defines it as “Uprightness, honesty and sincerity” which would be a challenge to anyone who happened to be having illicit sex with the spouse of a best friend - and I don’t think that being an atheist ought to get in the way of such an eventuality.)

I can not agree with your position on that one. Illicit sex has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or a theist. Until such time as the laws are changed, illicit is illicit. (As a personal aside, based on my understanding, part of the sexual thrill of adultry is the very fact that it is illicit.) I hope that you would not consider sex with a child as an acceptable or desirable atheist eventuality.

I will readily admit a bias for the word integrity. That is why I provided the long list of synonyms. Again it is one of those words which allows for a greater multiude of interpretations. Currently I remain of the opinion that that is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. My goal to create something that can be used to counter fundamentalist propaganda remains. (I have simply become very weary of people telling me that non-believers can't have moral/ethical values or beliefs comparable, or better, than believers.)

I realy do like your list. Short, sweet and to the point. I also find your idea if it being one's "Intent" to do these things a thoughtful approach. I'm just not sure if it conveys the level of philosophical and psychological power necessary to expose the 10 Commandments for the superstitious and narrow-minded list that it is.

Stephen T-B

I just thought that "uprightness, honesty and sincerity" might be a tall order for someone who is having to deceive a best friend on account of sleeping with his/ her spouse. Perhaps atheists shouldn't do such a thing, but I expect they're just as prone to it as Christians.
I take your point about the shorn list lacking substance.
(I'd thought at first that CaptainDave had embarked upon a rather fatuous exercise, but I think it has proved very worth while.)

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I am sorry about being such a pain. But...

5. Never put your passions over your principles.

Passes with flying colors.

What principles? Without a list of actual principles, there is no content. Will just any principles do? Are some principles better than others?


7. Improving oneself and society within the means available.

No problem here.

What counts as an "improvement"?

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Buffman

Stephen T-B

Perhaps atheists shouldn't do such a thing, but I expect they're just as prone to it as Christians.

It would seem to be pretty obvious that sexual mores have been a key ingredient of religious indoctrination from the very beginning of any concept of sin. Perhaps the best approach is the one that lends the most weight to "Two wrongs don't make a right." Just because one is an atheist doesn't bequeath them special treatment in the eyes of the law.

I take your point about the shorn list lacking substance.

There is plenty of substance there. However it doesn't seem to have the same poetic rhythm/mantra that would lock it into one's memory banks as a viable counter to the last six commandments while identifying the first four as superstitious, dictatorial, tyranny. I need to go back and reread GaryP's post on how certain lifestyle principles are being taught to the students.


Alonso Fyfe

I am sorry about being such a pain. But...

(Au contraire! It's a positive pain.) Contribution and discussion can only help to identify if this approach to countering the posting of the 10 Commandments has any viability whatsoever. For me, it seemed like it could have if non-believers would give some time and effort to looking inside themselves to see if they could accurately determine what principles/standards they were actually using to conduct their own lives and interactions with others. What do non-theists believe in strongly enough to defend even if that means placing their own lives at risk...and prioritize from there? Individual expression? Freedom to believe whatever they wish regardless of any potential consequences to themselves or others? Democracy? Those three things are often the primary contributors to chaos, majority rule, and might is right. Theists argue that without a sincere belief in a supreme creator/arbiter, and given the realities of the human genetic drives, the results of these manner of beliefs can only lead to social, moral, decay. Personally I believe that position is hogwash. However, I have had to examine very closely why I believe that position is hogwash. That is a considerable part of what this string is all about...examining the major principles/standards that have given purpose, meaning and direction to my life...and trying to discover if they are identical or similar to those of other non-believers, and then attempting to make a list of the most significant commonly held ones.

What principles? Without a list of actual principles, there is no content. Will just any principles do? Are some principles better than others?

I appreciate the rhetorical nature of the questions. Obviously there isn't much likelihood that anyone could list all the actual principles that they use to govern their lives let alone provide agreed justification for every one of them in ten words or less. That is why I used "Integrity" as the key "buzz word" for the list of commonly accepted positive principles to which most people claim to aspire. (i.e.: Honor, honesty, trustworthiness, goodness, etc.)

When you allege that there is no content, could not the same be said about many of the 10 Commandments or almost any declarative statement that is not amplified by the appropriate explanations/definitions? Exactly how does one "honor" their parents? What does "coveting" really mean? Can/should one bear false witness against an avowed enemy who is attempting to do them great bodily harm? (i.e.: "All's fair in Love and War!" That's a declarative statement, but try defending one's position on its accuracy or inaccuracy. How much content is contained in the word "fair?" That is exactly the kind of word being used by the creationists/ID types when they attempt to insert their religious faith beliefs into the public school science classrooms. "It's only FAIR that both theories be taught.") [Fair to whom?]

What counts as an "improvement"?

Anything that actually proves to have advanced an individual or group's position relative to the past or current position/situation from which they have desired relief. (Obviously Saddam would consider obtaining weapons of mass destruction as an improvement, whereas most of the world would not.) However, I have confidence that both believers and non-believers would consider something as an improvement that aided in rolling back the frontiers of the unknown or that helped us to knowledgeably overcome some of our natural fears. Atheists seem more inclined to support the former while theists tend to support the latter. (That's why I added the word "knowledgeably" to the latter in order to show how atheists tie it to the former. However, that would launch us into a discussion of what "knowledge" really is.) [Not today, please.] <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

ybnormal

Buffman:

I do find your "Supported by" addition a real good idea. Makes sense for several reasons. I try to not appear critical without it being constructive, altho it's often too hard to see.

And let me remind, that regarding you guys quest here, I did say... ...it is much needed and could serve a useful purpose regarding the no-god=no-morals argument...

I fully understand your I have principles and values comments... surely all of us have been told that all our personal values come from their ?God...

I love to tell such xians that if and when their judgment day comes, they will hide behind someone with integrity, someone like myself, when forced to face their maker, because I would have no fear pitting my entire life of principle, against the hypocritical, bigoted and supremacist values that are eternally embedded in their xian heart.


Buffman:
"IMHO, Atheism is a competing belief system. However, it isn't a competing RELIGIOUS belief system. Additionally, every Atheist does have a worldview...even if it is only a PERSONAL worldview."

Those quotation marks thru me a bit... I still assume they are your words... if so, you are, it seems, one of only a few around here who actually says/admits that... I remain unsure what the word "worldview" actually means in the true sense of the word... I often wish this site had good list of common terms/definitions for lazy folks like me... if it does, I ain't seen it...

Frankly, I stay away from self-labeling, with the likes of "Atheist" and/or any "competing belief system" thoughts... and if "atheism" IS a competing belief system, why ain't it capitalized in my Webster's like all the others? Actually, I'm just using "Webster's" as a catchy generic...can't believe my old Random House Collegiate actually says:

atheism, n.
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God or gods
2. ungodliness, immorality, or wickedness

Hell, no wonder we catch hell. Us folks are patently described as having a belief in immorality and wickedness from the get go. Jeeze!

Anyway, I'll consider a personal label when someone comes up with a term that fully describes my feelings... which is indifference... I'm at a point where I don't really care whether there is or ain't some ?god.

Who knows? Who cares? Why bother?

Can I petition Webster's to capitalize "apathetic", and to add an n. beside their adj. so I can properly label myself? I could then label myself a true "Apathetic", and a founding member of "Apathism".

OK! Enough for the sideshow... back on topic...

Buffman:
It is like Stephen T-B said in his post. If they are against this list, then they are against the positive moral values found in their own 10 Commandments...

CaptianDave:
I meant this thread to be a discussion of how individuals can best conduct themselves when promoting separation of church and state. I looking for a political strategy - not a moral code.

As for my way of thinking here, CaptainDave hit it square on with the fact that he is looking for a political strategy - not a moral code. in promoting separation of church and state.

I want to try to draw some correlation with ya'll's above statements... in arguments with xians, when asked where I get my personal sense of right and wrong, I find myself stating the obvious, that I live by the law... that I don't have, nor do I need anything else... Period! That there is nothing other than the US Constitution and everything that has been derived from it, including local laws, with which to guide any and all rights and wrongs in my life.

This goes to the heart of U.S. xian political strategy, which is ALL that really matters anymore, and which simply put, literally intends to replace our man's law with their ?god's law. They openly claim that our man's law is already based on biblical teachings, but that is not enough. They are determined to install their ?god's law ABOVE our man's law, i.e., their bible INSTEAD OF our Constitution.

This is why I drone on and on about listening closer to xian words, and then try to sort out the wordy chaff in order to boil the pertinent words down to their simplest form... so, if they say that, then by default, they said this. It is all very exacting to me.

My point is, that when reading you guy's points above, in order to assist and convey my way of thinking, I found myself reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Amendments, for ideas and suggestions. Altho I didn't really find the help I was looking for, it still demonstrates where I'm coming from.

Like, if there were some way to actually quote those types of legal sources and still accomplish your goals, then critical xians, by default, would be forced to ridicule the Constitution itself, rather than Atheists in particular.

In other words, turn that Stephen/your reasoning around against them... That If they are against this list, then they are against the positive moral values found in their own 10 Commandments and Holy Bible.

As in If they are against your list, then they are against the Constitution of the United States.

Does that make ANY sense?

And as an aside, I sense some need to rush to completion, and just wanted to ask, "What's the real rush?" This is something, IMO, which could take some serious time to gather proper input and momentum, if you will. Some folks just don't think fast.

Peace!

CaptainDave

ybnormal quoting me:

That was my original intent. It never would have occured to me to encourage us to craft a secular version of the 10C. Buffman took it in that direction. He put a lot of effort into it and made a good case for doing so (in this forum and in private discussions with me). So I'm on the bandwagon!

Alonzo Fyfe:

Would "Never put your passions above THEESE principles" be better?

As to what counts as an improvement, I'd say that's a matter of individual interpretation.

I personally think that general sentiments are more important to this type of document than flawless language. If anyone (Alonzo?) can improve the language without diluting the sentiment, have at it.

Another Idea: A two-part document. One short and sweet with a detailed, perfect-language companion document to spell it out.

Alonzo, I'm also wonderering if you are calling for a set of ABSOLUTE moral guidelines?

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]</p>