You’re not wrong there >__<

Holy sodding bonobos … A point we totally agree on! If the Pope wrote a Dogma dammning spammers, chain-letter-forwarders, and people who think I should “Look at this picture!” I might actually consider a return to church.

@Daddio:
Simply asking “why” to simple statements like these is, politely speaking, the response of a small child. Why not “Why not”?

Your response could more easily be applied to the first commandment, of Torah fame. Which might also help your confusion problem if you discover the logical answer.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their convictions as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist affirms that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist affirms that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist affirms that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist affirms that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist affirms that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He affirms that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He affirms that we are our brother’s keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

This was written a while back, but I substituted affirm for belief. It could still use some tweaking since it sounds rather sexist to my ears at the moment.

and then you come away with your own idea of what sort of ethics you want to follow, which is the whole point.

Perhaps I should have explained further. There seems to have been a great deal of discussion while I was in class, and I have to admit I prefer the secular humanist list, or even the FSM list (although I really do loathe every noodly bit of FSM nonsense.)

What I meant in my original post might be explained by the definition of ‘dogma’ (which I got from dictionary.reference.com, in case anyone is hyper-interested):

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

So, what I meant was simply that atheists who criticize both Christianity’s specific doctrines and the unthinking acceptance of dogma in general should think twice before ascribing to this list (or really any other for that matter) any merit whatsoever. Part of this is simply because of the intentional reference to the ten commandments, which I get, but the whole thing is still more than slightly flawed IMO.

Incidentally, I agree with Digital Dame’s assessment of #8, which is so general it strikes me as frankly ridiculous.

@Daniel

Sorry to come off as snarky, but it makes me wince when well-meaning individuals, theists or non-theists, send these clever articles to every single person in their address book without consideration for how well whatever it is stands up to any sort of close examination. No criticism for putting it up on your site (by all means put up whatever you’d like!) but the same 6th sense that makes me delete chain e-mails was tingling rather furiously when I submitted my original comment. =D