Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Secular Commandments by doctormo Secular Commandments by doctormo
So annoyed was I at the attacks against the secular community by the pope when he visited the UK last week that I felt compelled to dig out and update my secular commandments. More info here: [link]

Basically it boils down to the fictitious reasoning that only religious people can be moral and good people because they have these rules they must follow in order to be considered a member of the community of faith in good standing.

We in the secular world have rules too, and if you break them you will be excommunicated from the community. In some instances it's because you've been thrown in jail and in others it's because people in your community and family will no longer speak to or trust you any more.
Add a Comment:
 
:icondemonresurrect427:
DemonResurrect427 Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Amen :pray:
Reply
:iconasecretoutlet:
asecretoutlet Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012
... I only agree with like half of these
But I appreciate your point- secularists aren't some kind of immoral league of ne'er-do-wells XD
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Let's have an old fashioned epic rhetoric battle then ;-) firstly call out the ones you don't like, then suggest an alternative and then I'll come in and shake things up.
Reply
:iconasecretoutlet:
asecretoutlet Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
OH sorry, and as alternatives:
[link]
you can critique mine, too :)
Reply
:iconasecretoutlet:
asecretoutlet Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
challenge accepted!! ;D
1. in my opinion, it's about HOW you debate, not where or when. If you're respectful and, if possible, even light and friendly about it, then debating should happen as often as possible. It's a much better way to erase ignorance. Of course, if the other person acts like a turd, drop it, but if they're respectful too, then it was probably helpful to everyone.
5. I DON'T BELIEVE IN RESPECT!!! \m/ ;) but in all seriousness, respect is inferior to a spirit of questioning and critique, as long as- again- it is done respectfully.
6. NOT ALWAYS. I would say treat them just like you would treat any human being under the circumstances- if you are aware of the self-sacrifices they made or did not make, act accordingly. I am definitely going to remember my parents because they were very self-sacrificing and were wonderful parents, but in all honesty, I don't blame some kids for moving on and never looking back.
7. for any reason is a stretch. If there's a guy in your basement holding a gun to the head of your child and you have a knife, I would consider it understandable if you killed him. Same with self-defense.
(I really like #9, by the way.)
10. I don't understand this one... explain it to me? :)
11. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. Desire is a beautiful and necessary part of the human experience- it is the step that precedes action, and action precedes experience, which is valuable! Desire WITHOUT action is kind of a negative thing, but the negativity stems from the lack of action, not the desire itself.

COME AT ME. ;D
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I'll first add that this work was an example of derivative dialectic art. So the items in the list are not an end from which careful consideration of the task was taken. But instead a rewording, rethinking of the existing canon list of commandments.

1. The point of the first element is more about dealing with fantasy and the fantastical point of view we all have about the world. The wording though, that's the trick.

5. Respect is not comparable to critical thinking. They are modular of the correct composure.

6. Neglectful parents don't raise children. But note it says REMEMBER, not respect, not praise. It's about understanding your origins as much as paying tribute to those origins for good or bad.

7. No, I guess the world 'intend' should be stuffed into there. But there is no excuse for setting about to kill someone. I have a child and in that situation I would very quickly sacrifice myself in disabling the kidnapper as quickly as possible, perhaps even stabbing him. The difference is that once disabled I wouldn't wait for him to bleed to death.

10. This one is about saying "It's wrong, but not monstrous to lie to get someone out of jail; but it's is NOT OK to lie to put someone into jail."

11. It doesn't say desire is bad, or wanting new things, new ideas or even pleasure is a problem. The key to 11. is in the way one human being looks at another human being's property and envies it. Causing distress, jealousy and from this preoccupation with inequality breeds many social ills.
Reply
:iconasecretoutlet:
asecretoutlet Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
5. What do you mean, comparable? I wasn't comparing, I was prioritizing. Questioning and critiquing is more important to me than being quietly respectful.

6. When you say "remember," you imply more than simply thinking about your origins.

7. There is NO excuse for setting about to kill someone? What if the person is about to commit mass genocide? Silly rabbit, absolutes are for kids! ;)

10. Ah, I see! I agree with you there. Although I can, as always, imagine few exceptions where that wouldn't be true. MORAL RELATIVITY, MY BOY :)

11. yes, but read my first notation on this- the desire itself isn't the problem, it's the way one goes about it. number 11 says you should be happy with what you have, which is saying don't desire more.
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
5. Ordered lists can not be made of items which can not be compared. This is a mathematical logic. Instead they are components of a whole. No critique is whole without perspective, no ambition virtuous without compassion. Respect is not about authority; although you wouldn't think that from the way parents throw the word around.

6. That's a wording error you've brought in. But worth considering if the wording would be made to mean what it should to more people.

7. Kids are working their way through moral escapism OTOH a justification for immoral behaviour is not an excuse for refusing to deal with the consequences and by inviting moral relativism as an adult you abscond with the very notion that certain actions have these consequences. I consider relativism a stepping stone back to a more wise and discretionary absolute philosophy.

10. See 7. Although knowing that vile figures have been put behind bars for tax evasion; one could argue the case. But then you'd set yourself up as judge on cases that you may know know all the facts.

11. Happiness is not contentment (why has society become so dumbed down with it's English use) being happy that you have half a meal is possible, while desiring to have a full meal. Happiness doesn't have to distract one's ambition. right now though we don't modulate our design against what we really internally desire; but against what others around us have. It's a biological thing that may be cured in the future ;-)
Reply
:iconasecretoutlet:
asecretoutlet Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
5. Yes, but your commandment implies something different than respect balanced by questioning. It sounds too similar to just respect to me.

7. it's not a justification for immoral behavior- in that case, it was the moral thing to do. It's moral, but only relative to the situation.

11. again, your wording implied something very different. And I have no problem with unhappiness or incontinence with one's current situation. I think it's a necessary part of life without which many people's lives wouldn't improve.
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
And this I think we reach the crux of most of the problems. Wording. This might be because I'm British and worse, northern. My education and culture colours my wording differently and it's apparent with sensitive subjects like morality, care to remove misreading is important.

7. No, killing someone might be considered just, but it can never be considered moral. Justice is a matter of relative and more importantly, social consensus. While morality is principle and involves personal responsibility. So, you may kill someone in a just situation; but making reparations to their family or regretting needing to is a moral consequence. What bugs me about relative moral thinking is that is dissolves principle in favour of excusing and responsibility especially since human brains are awfully good at retrospective rationalisation.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondailyatheist:
DailyAtheist Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2010  Hobbyist Artist
I would have to take exception to #1(and #7 because it's so absolute). There's a difference between being able to voice your irrationality (street preacher) and forcing it on others(teacher, mayor, doctor).
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
There are some absolutes, but then morality is really split on the whole between philosophical morality and social morality. Killing and harming in general we would consider a philosophically immoral act.

I've never known an instance where killing was ever required, although I admit it does save on cleaning up the mess later.
Reply
:icondailyatheist:
DailyAtheist Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2010  Hobbyist Artist
Morality is partly a social convention and partly instinct due to evolution favoring somehwat moral people. So it's by definition social, directly or indirectly. The whole thing of "philosophically immoral" sounds outright alien to me. I had to google it to see that it was actually in use by anyone else.(result: [link] ) I see it's used simply to emphasize just how immoral something is. They could have said that "it's immoral", but they want to lend credibility from philosophy to say that abortion, nuclear bombs and Microsoft etc. are really immoral or perhaps objectively immoral.

Just when it is required to kill someone is a different question but my issue was mainly with the absolute wording. Proper self defence (when it's not used as an excuse) would be enough for me. In hindsight clever people can find many ways out of difficult situations, but you can't think of everything when you're life is threatened.
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
Ah well I was trying to explain my thoughts through language use, not lend any credibility to them. Please do take them as you find them.

I'd love a definition of an indirectly social moral and a directly social moral. These may just be the same definitions I'm using will different words.

The problem with typical objective morality is that it normally betrays an ability to be empathetical by excusing the wrong doing as simply a blindness. Self imposing a blindness then becomes the principle job of anyone who wants to ignore the implications of what they do to others. Another social system paradox really.

I merely wished to make a distinction between so-called-morals which are top level social flotsam. Like wearing clothes, talking about sex, eating with the wrong fork. And deeper morals (even though, yes technically also social) are more universal to us as a species (to such a degree that removing them removes the humanity in many philosophies).

I would argue that doing immoral things is likely, defending yourself and so forth. It's what you do afterwards that probably has the biggest impact on perception. Modern society tends to be more clever about dealing forgiveness and understanding rather than the mobs, lynchings and expulsions.

The immorality is quite easily absolute, what we do about it... that's where your grey is required.
Reply
:iconsh4rk3y:
SH4RK3Y Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
this is perfect, I'm actually having to take a class in religious ethics right now and are officially and respectfully asking to use this as evidence to throw back at m teacher the next time we debate and he questions my understanding of ethics through lack of faith.
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
See the license terms on the piece. It's Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. I'd be happy for you to start selling t-shirts and broadcasting it on commercial radio. Knock yourself out.

Just remember to attribute (that this piece was made by me) and link back tot his page.
Reply
:iconsh4rk3y:
SH4RK3Y Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
thanks
Reply
:iconkneelingglory:
KneelingGlory Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010
:clap:
Reply
:iconlunarcloud:
lunarcloud Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010
Wonderful!

I love non-insulting positive atheist commandments.
Reply
:iconpomprint:
PomPrint Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
How about adding:-

"Thou shalt not enforce thine own mythology upon any other human being"?
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010  Professional Digital Artist
See commandments 1,2 and 9
Reply
:iconpomprint:
PomPrint Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Fair point!
Reply
:iconpomprint:
PomPrint Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Very good indeed...and I wholeheartedly agree with you!
Reply
:iconparady:
Parady Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2010
You know The question as to God is rather complex , but I must say that thought I cant affirm or deny the existence of god , I do NOT approve religion and their institution that takes mens freedom away . The anwser they give are like shortcut . unknown anwser = god . Though believing in something give someone a sens of security .
Reply
:icontieskevo:
tieskevo Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2010  Student Interface Designer
Religion is the opium -for- the people - Karl Marx
Reply
:icondoctormo:
doctormo Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
The sigh of the masses. ;-)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Photo
Download PNG 632 × 477





Details

Submitted on
September 25, 2010
Image Size
117 KB
Resolution
632×477
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,389 (1 today)
Favourites
30 (who?)
Comments
36
Downloads
33

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
×