I agree with your comment that deist/theist (same thing different label) believe that all atheist are immoral, however I prefer the argument 'that if you need a deity to set your moral code then what sort of human are you'

Evangelicals and I use this term to describe the followers of the American, possibly the Southern version of Christianity, of which I may say is somewhat and alarmingly prevalent in modern day New Zealand Christianity, appear from either one; or all sections of society that could be termed 'the used, the abused and the confused' their views on morality come from their current and most influential educator.

I do not believe that atheist need to convince these people of either their lack of a belief system or of the cultural morality inherent in most humans, as atheism and human culture far outdate their contrived and often selected morality; remember these people are the usurpers not ourselves.

I feel that the best interest of atheist is not to mimic, but to discredit evangelical arguments with clear and reasoned logic.

Ev. Hitler and Stalin were atheists.

At. Richard the third (Coeur de Leon) and the Inquisition were Christians, Galileo Galilee was denounced by the Christian church for teaching Copernican astronomy.

And so the argument goes, however most atheist are people of reasonable intellect and the evangelical arguments are weak and often end with an assertion of belief, the intellectual version of the cop out.

In summary, my view is thus; that atheism is neither a movement a belief nor an umbrella faction. Atheists often arrive from the broad church of society and the varietals of political belief. People such as Richard Dawkins choose to bring his view to the fore; however, Dawkins chooses to stay apolitical and non-subscriptive, as we should all choose.

I take your web page as a satire an applaud your bravery in today's America and thoroughly enjoy this conversation.

I agree that atheism isn't a coherent movement. Instead, "atheist" is a descriptive term that encompases a wide variety of beliefs and opinions (as does "Christian").

Personally, I think that talking about whether atheism came before theism is irrelevant to which is superior. The same can be said for naming good and bad atheists/theists, as heroes and villains can be found in both camps.

I agree that arguments against atheism or for theism should be met with reason and logic. However, it is my opinion that being able to counter arguments such as these is not nearly as important as trying to help others examine their own beliefs for logical flaws. If everyone were reasonable, moral, and logically consistent, it would make far less difference whether we were theists or atheists.

This is so like shooting fish in a barrel!

"Don't worship stuff."

How about money or my wife?

"Be polite."

Atheists don't have to be polite. They can be total asses if they want to because they make their own decisions.

"Take a day off once in a while."

Atheists can't be workaholics?

"Be nice to folks."

Why should I? They have to be nice to me first.

"Don't kill people."

Death penalty all the way! What a bout just wars? Or self defense? Or eating meat?

"Don't cheat on your significant other."

You can't tell me who to have sex with. If she doesn't find out, who does it harm?

"Don't steal stuff."

I can't take a pen home from work? Give me a break!

"Don't lie about stuff."

Okay, I'll tell my mom her dress looks ugly.

"Don't be greedy."

Why????? Piles o' money that's for me!!!!!!

Your arguments all fail for one or more of the following reasons:

1) My list of rights and responsibilities is for moral atheists. If you aren't moral, then it doesn't apply to you (and I'd argue that, for example, if you cheat on your wife you aren't moral).

2) The list, like any list of this type, trades a bit of rigor for brevity. For example, I obviously don't intend atheists to be nothing-but-the-truth-telling robots.

3) The list includes rights as well as responsibilities. Taking a day off is a right, but nobody requires you to exercise your rights.

If you would like to make a more detailed argument about one (or all) of these, I am interested in listening.

I should have made it a bit clearer.

1) Atheist; do not need to demonstrate to religious people that they are moral. Morality is cultural and arguably genetic rather than religious. Therefore my comment; neither require nor subscribe too, refers to the list in its entirety. Effectively please don't replace a set of rules for a similar set of rules, you or I don't have the moral authority for that.

2) Creating a ten commandments is a step towards creating a creed that I suggest only supplants one creed for another and leaves the religious groups (deists used loosely) fodder to call atheism a religion, this is prevalent on some evangelical websites.

I hope that sums up my position

Okay, I think I understand you a bit better now.

In item #1, when you say that atheists do not "need" to demonstrate to religious people that they are moral you are technically correct. However, there are a great many religious people who believe that atheists are necessarily immoral. It's this assumption of immorality (or, at least, non-morality) that makes some people think that atheists shouldn't, for example, hold public office. I'd say that it is in the best interest of atheists to show these theists the error of their ways.

Your statement that morality is cultural and possibly genetic rather than religious is, I think, a little ill defined. Many people's culture is inexorably intertwined with their religion. Also, many people believe that morality requires religion or a deity, and even though they are wrong, they are making important decisions based on this belief.

You are completely correct that I do not have the moral authority to dictate a set of rules for moral atheism. As I said, the point of the page in question really isn't to create such a list of rules. However, I think that moral atheists would largely agree with most of the statements on that page, so I don't mind saying that this is the case in order to make a broader point.

I am somewhat in agreement with your point #2 and would never insist that there are atheist "commandments." However, I do think that there are a number of things that moral atheists have in common, and enumerating them is no more creating a creed than enumerating things mathematicians generally agree upon would be. The main differences between my list and a religious creed are that mine is subject to argument and change, and that I recognize that it does not apply to all atheists.

You are definitely correct that some theists believe atheism to be a religion (or, at least, think it should be legally treated as such). I don't think that my list of rights and responsibilities would be much help in their efforts, in that by quoting it they would be doing more to poke fun at their own position than to damage mine.

So, to sum up, I agree with you that I have no right to dictate morality to atheists, but since the Web page in question is satire I don't think it's philosophically problematic. I do, however, maintain that this list of items generally applies to moral atheists, and would be very interested in any argument to the contrary.

> "If the thinking person is an atheist" is a tautology.

Actually it's an oxymoron.

Now we've just got name calling going on. If you want to convince me I'm not a thinking person, you'll have to convince me with evidence. (Irony? Anyone?)

"If the thinking person is an atheist" is a tautology.

I disagree. There are plenty of intelligent theists.

I think that the reason so many people call you gay. Gay people have sinful sex, so they are spitting in God's eye, so they reject God, so they are atheists, so atheists are gay. You are atheist so you are gay. 'atheist' is short for 'ass the fist'.

Wow, so many words and yet so few that aren't ignorant, offensive, and/or wrong. Very impressive.

Why do you persist in trying to make atheism into a creed? The ten commandments of atheism is a sad attempt to create a doctrine that most thinking people neither require nor subscribe to. You are only offering the deist fuel to further their cause

I'm not trying to make atheism into a creed. The "ten commandments of atheism" is not an attempt to make a doctrine for atheists, but instead to demonstrate to those who think that atheists are not moral that atheists are pretty much as moral as they are.

You say that "most thinking people neither require nor subscribe to" these rules. Can you be more specific about which of the rules thinking people wouldn't subscribe to? It seems to me that most thinking people (at least the moral ones) would subscribe to rules against killing, cheating, stealing, and lying. If the thinking person is an atheist, then I assume that they don't have gods or worship anything. That leaves being polite, taking a day off once in a while, and not being greedy as debatable, but I'd hope that thinking people wouldn't be against these principles.

As for giving fuel to deists, what fuel would that be? None of these rules imply that there is a deity and none of them are articles of faith. They are all arrived at through a logical, rational process that has nothing to do with religion. Besides, deists only barely let the concept of god interfere with their day-to-day actions, and I almost never run into a deist who argues against atheism. As I see it, it's more complexly religious folks that cause the most problems.