Topic: Can you come up with a better Ten Commandments? (Read 2112 times)

It is not saying, "Think about yourself", but "Think for yourself"...

Do not rely on other people to think for you... have a critical mind... be skeptical and think about shit... don't believe everything you see/read/hear without first thinking about whether it is true or false


Also note, this isn't my list (though it looks eerily similar)... it came from a book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Book_(book)

I think some have of this have the same gist,

Be kind and love well

respect nature and harm no other

Some belongs to one category in my opinion.

I think # 4 is very selfish. Why would you just think for yourself. It is better if you will also care for others.
I think you must replace it with this : Quoted bottom.

I happened across another list by a humanist

1.    Love well
2.    Seek the good in all things
3.    Harm no others
4.    Think for yourself
5.    Take responsibility
6.    Respect nature
7.    Do your utmost
8.    Be informed
9.    Be kind
10.   Be courageous

Good to see you are more capable of learning than BADlogic...

Being a Jew myself, I am familiar with the 613 commandments...

The first of which is, "I am the lord your god"... which isn't even a commandment... prolly why the christians skipped that one and went straight to number 2 as their first commandment

Most of them are bullshit and repetitive... including things like not cutting your sideburns, eating meat and dairy in the same meal, wearing clothes made of 2 different fabrics, etc... stupid shit

The Christians commandements are a semplification of the 613 mitzvot from the Jews tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Commandments are 613 not 10.

Have a nice time in reading those.


Best regards.

I have been thinking about doing something along those lines, and plan to bring it up at the Reason Rally next month...

I'd hate to call it a religion... but, I have been listening to some of the legitimate criticism of atheists, and it makes sense in a way

I am referring to a couple things really... one is that atheists don't have any specific moral code or whatever... I think some religious people would have an easier transition into being an atheist, if atheists had a book they could teach their children morals from that didn't revolve around a god

Atheists have also been criticized for being negative, without much positive... I completely disagree with this statement, atheists do plenty of good things all the time... but, I'm a big fan of leading by example... I'd attend an atheist church, where we read from our book of logic and facts... then cooked some food to feed the local homeless or something... that'd be swell

It's one thing to say, "Hey religitards, you're doing it wrong"... but the right thing to say is, "Watch me, I'll show you how it should be done"

according to me, your ten commandements are better than previous one.. moses and other prophets were really fucked up.. for me, you shoul start a new regilion with these commandments.

+1 for #3

Bill and Ted were the most excellent philosophers

Honestly, you sound like a religious preacher now... asserting things as true, which are not self-evident as such

You make way too many assumptions, such as the placebo affect being a presupposition that you will get better... there are many more likely explanations with more evident credibility

you are also way off topic, please get back on topic

I cannot prove what is already proven. What do you think the placebo effect is? It's a presupposition / an implied suggestion. If I'm taking this pill, then surely it must do something - otherwise I wouldn't be taking it. Thus I get better.

It also escalates depending the degree of "sacrifice". For example a red capsule may be more efficient than a white pill (all inert / all made of the same substance). And an inert injection can be even more potent than either. Why? Because the subconscious goes like "if I'm going through all this painful process, then surely it must have some positive effect". An injection is a bigger "sacrifice" than drinking a pill. So the "reward" implied is also greater, and it shows.

What you are saying can happen but you must first accept the programming from your environment (in other words being convinced that you have crappy creativity and that it can't get better - when this is false). So you fall into the self-defeating trap of cheating/stealing etc which then "cements" the belief you originally had, which then starts going into a downward spiral of confirmation and repetition.

Its simply not true and you cannot possibly prove it

How do you know the correlation is not the other way around?  I could use the same evidence to say that uncreative people resort to thievery... it's because they are not capable of creating on their own that they must steal...

You are simply uninformed. What I'm saying is also applied in hypnosis and suggestion. It is known as presupposition.

You "load" a sentence with a presupposition and it goes right through.

Actions are the same. They are subconscious presuppositions.

Sorry, I don't buy what you're selling...

There are no objective "subconsciously implied self-limitations"... this sounds like something you made up and could not possibly apply to everyone

You say the act of stealing means I'm not capable of building something on my own... there is no correlation; that's just silly nonsense... many thieves are highly creative

If you factor the subconsciously implied self-limitations, then nobody would want to be a thief. The long-term losses far outweigh the short-term "gains". They aren't gains really.


This is automatically done by doing what is best for yourself. However it will require a broader understanding for the individual to understand what is best for themselves. That's the only thing missing right now.

Game theory has it's own issues... it is often used to prove a point, but is not reliable or consistent in all situations

One example would be theft... it is bad if everyone is a thief, good if nobody is a thief... but, it is best if you are a thief and nobody else is a thief... but that is self-contradictory, if you assume more than 1 person understands this concept... it often leads to an impossible/catch-22 situation


I would again defer to the Aborigines:
Do what is in the best interest of everyone

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Don't be a cunt

Those definetly need to be added on the commandments.

But the 2nd one pretty much falls upon the greed level lol, so I guess thats already covered.

I say adding to one "commandment". My version: Greed is welcomed as long you pay your fair taxes. lol.

Yes.

There is only 1 command, which combines spirituality, morality and logic. It is also the only command that can lead to a coherent output for societies and individuals alike:

Do what is in your best interest.

The only problem with the above "command", is that people don't really know what is in their best interest because the (current) environment is informing them in the wrong way. We are living in "dark ages" but we don't know it.

For example, if you can steal money and know with 100% certainty that you will not be caught, then traditional game theory will tell you that "the logical thing to do is steal them because you gain".

The problem is that this type of game theory does not account for the hidden costs of the silent observer - which is our subconscious (or superconscious).

When the subconscious watches what the conscious does, it says "if I'm stealing, then this means that I'm worthless to create what I want on my own". This observation then becomes a self-limiting self-suggestion that is extremely powerful. "I'm worthless / I'm a parasite". This is implied, signed and "sealed" by our own very actions.

What we do defines us and, by consequence, prescribes our own limitation - if what we do has self-limiting implications.

Humans have been looking for thousands of years for a system where people can be moral / ethical / law-abiding, without having a god or a policeman to watch over them. They will never find it for as long as they do not understand that cause and effect are already embedded in the human mind.

You steal? You become limited as a parasite. The "judgement" and "punishment" is served immediately as a consequence of our new self-definition. I am stealing = I'm a thief = I am worthless parasite.

Do I want to become a worthless parasite? No. Then why would I steal? Do I need a policeman? Do I need a God threatening me with hell? No.

Likewise for any other "sin". If I'm harming others it's only because I lack faith in myself to promote my wellbeing in any other way. Let's say I'm a worker who feels that by badmouthing a fellow worker I can advance my career. My subconscious sees me harming the other guy and asks "Would I need to be harming others if I could advance on my own? Therefore I'm useless to advance on my own - and that's why I have to resort to such tactics." And at that moment it's sealed that I'm useless. It's sealed that I do not have expanded potential. It's like dis-acknowledging it by my actions. The "punishment" is immediate. The "karma" is instant.

All Game Theory that is based on "rational behavior" while not accounting for the hidden costs of the silent observer = bad science.

Proper Game Theory accounts for the subconsciously implied programming and the associated costs of each action. It understands that there are two thought-streams, one conscious and one subconscious. It understands that what is a "gain" now is countered by a repeated "loss" down the line, where I lose again, and again, and again, because I programmed myself as a loser. So why would I do that? Why would *anyone* do that?

The only reason they would, is because they are unaware of the hidden costs of their behavior. It's 2016. It's about time everybody finds out about them.

Do not harm or deceive anyone