I have been helped by reading and trying to incorporate the commands and/or language used from other attempts to better the Ten Commandments, as suggested by Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, David Madison (in his chapter for my anthology The Case Against Miracles), the Seven Satanic Precepts, and a few I wrote in my book How to Defend The Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.
By doing this I am suggesting God was ignorant, incompetent and inconsiderate when he gave us his ten big ones! Had he given my suggested commands instead, he would have saved untold numbers of lives, immensely decreased the amount of suffering in the world, and exponentially increased human knowledge, and with it produced a safer, healthier world to live in.
Criticisms and suggestions are appreciated.
Whenever someone is defending faith, or is arguing that faith and reason are compatible, they should be asked which of three common meanings of the term they are thinking of. If the exact meaning of the word isn't made clear, it is almost a given that their claims will deteriorate into a mess of equivocation.
When challenged to provide evidence for the existence of God, most theists reply that their belief is based on faith. This makes it clear that, in this context, “faith” means belief without evidence. This meaning of the word also applies to the claim that faith is needed when the evidence isn't conclusive. Or in other words, when the believer says that reason can only take one so far, and one must make the decision to believe.
I recorded a video
talk for two virtual conferences this past Labor Day weekend, for the International
eConference on Atheism, put on by the Global Center for Religious Research, and for the Dragon Con Skeptic Track. I'm very grateful for these two opportunities. That video will be released sometime soon. In what
follows is the text of my talk. Please share if you want others to discuss it with you. Enjoy the discussion!
Today I’m arguing,
along the same lines as Christopher Hitchens did, that “What can be asserted
without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” [God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York,
Twelve. 2007), p.150.] Specifically I’m arguing that “Miracle Claims Asserted Without Relevant Objective Evidence Can Be
Dismissed. Period!”
I think all reasonable
people would agree. Without any relevant objective evidence miracle claims
shouldn’t be entertained, considered, believed, or even debunked. I intend to go
further to argue that as far as we can tell, all, or almost all miracle assertions, lack any relevant objective evidence, and as such, can be dismissed out of
hand, per Hitchens.