Humans 'Predisposed' to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife

[wanstronian]

I don’t hold any beliefs in any deities myself but I can’t help but feel that comments like the “sky fairy” comment might interfere with some one being able to receive some of the information that you have to contribute. I’m not saying that you should hold back on sharing an item of information for fear that some one may not like it. But I would like to discourage the use of descriptions that may misrepresent the beliefs of another.

You’re right, of course.

I publicly apologise for the phrase “invisible sky-fairy,” it was unprofessional. That said, I don’t think it would have made a whole heap of difference to how the theists on this forum received my underlying message!

 

[wanstronian]

Pagans did invent gods and were proven false. Catholics believe in one true God because He came to meet us as well as the rest of Revelation.

How were these gods proven false? How do you prove your God to be true? Revelation doesn’t cut it, clearly, because other religions also have revelations. So you’re left with proving that God “came to meet us.” Where is your proof for this?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You’re right, of course.

I publicly apologise for the phrase “invisible sky-fairy,” it was unprofessional. That said, I don’t think it would have made a whole heap of difference to how the theists on this forum received my underlying message!

Talk about a back-handed apology.

 

[wanstronian]

Ah, it must be so nice so be able to simply and fully assess someone when they make and off-hand remarks, especially one prone to flippant remarks themselves. Hypocrite.

Well, if your use of “credo” was unintentional, and you fully appreciate the robustness of the Theory of Evolution, as well as accept its overwhelming evidence, then I apologise. It’s just that you sounded like you didn’t believe in it.

As you can see, I’ve apologised for my flippant remark.

Unfortunately, your statement is still unsound. It’s your prerogative if you want to stand by flawed logic.

Well, we’ll agree to disagree on that score then. Your assertion was that it was “odd” to “dismiss a natural prediliction, physiologically demonstrated, as an unreasonable response.” The specific predilection here was that for a belief in supernatural agency. In that context, which was very clear, my comment of, “a natural predilection does not constitue a reasonable response” is perfectly accurate. If you do not agree, then it is your logic, not mine, that is unsound.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Well, if your use of “credo” was unintentional, and you fully appreciate the robustness of the Theory of Evolution, as well as accept its overwhelming evidence, then I apologise. It’s just that you sounded like you didn’t believe in it.

As you can see, I’ve apologised for my flippant remark.

Well, we’ll agree to disagree on that score then. Your assertion was that it was “odd” to “dismiss a natural prediliction, physiologically demonstrated, as an unreasonable response.” The specific predilection here was that for a belief in supernatural agency. In that context, which was very clear, my comment of, “a natural predilection does not constitue a reasonable response” is perfectly accurate. If you do not agree, then it is your logic, not mine, that is unsound.

Then I’ll accept your apology as genuine and apologize for my goading you. As for your predilection statement, it’s open to interpretation to my mind. I would hazard to guess that most innate predilections are largely useful and your statement may lead one to think you believe that they, by-and-large, are not appropriate responses. However, you’ve clarified your position so as to when someone reviews this thread, they’ll have better context. Thank-you.

 

[wanstronian]

Talk about a back-handed apology.

What is your problem, buddy? It was a genuine apology, nothing back-handed about it. What’s so wrong in your life that you have to see subterfuge in everybody with whom you disagree?

Just grow up, little boy.

 

[buffalo]

How were these gods proven false? How do you prove your God to be true? Revelation doesn’t cut it, clearly, because other religions also have revelations. So you’re left with proving that God “came to meet us.” Where is your proof for this?

Navigating your way through the claims you will inevitably find yourself at Catholicism (which incidentally is why you post here)

There is much evidence, already posted for your benefit, that shows the evidence for God and how He came to meet man, and then sent His son to close the deal.

Catholicism possesses the “fullness of truth”.

 

[Planty_Business]

Navigating your way through the claims you will inevitably find yourself at Catholicism (which incidentally is why you post here)

There is much evidence, already posted for your benefit, that shows the evidence for God and how He came to meet man, and then sent His son to close the deal.

Catholicism possesses the “fullness of truth”.

That’s an unfounded assumption, regarding wanstronian’s reasons for being at this forum. Obviously he and I have not found ourselves at Catholicism. Rather, I (I can’t speak for him) post here despite being an atheist for the same reason Christians try to convert atheists; it’s not that I want to actively destroy Christianity, I just think that I have found the truth, and a view of the world that you will find far more intellectually and emotionally satisfying than any religion. Humans love to spread ideas and knowledge in hopes that they will effect positive changes in the way people think and act.

There is a difference between being interested in civilized debate with people of differing views, and thinking that their views are correct. I do the former because I care about society, and I know that society is negatively affected by the dangerous “virtue” of religious faith.

Incidentally, what, in the original post, tells us that God “sent his son to close the deal”?

 

[buffalo]

That’s an unfounded assumption, regarding wanstronian’s reasons for being at this forum. Obviously he and I have not found ourselves at Catholicism. Rather, I (I can’t speak for him) post here despite being an atheist for the same reason Christians try to convert atheists; it’s not that I want to actively destroy Christianity, I just think that I have found the truth, and a view of the world that you will find far more intellectually and emotionally satisfying than any religion. Humans love to spread ideas and knowledge in hopes that they will effect positive changes in the way people think and act.

There is a difference between being interested in civilized debate with people of differing views, and thinking that their views are correct. I do the former because I care about society, and I know that society is negatively affected by the dangerous “virtue” of religious faith.

Incidentally, what, in the original post, tells us that God “sent his son to close the deal”?

Catholicism is the most “hated” and most challenged religion for a reason. It is the real deal. That is why atheist posters come here, why waste time refuting lesser religions?

Have you read The Irrational Atheist? - it deals quite nicely with the "dangerous “virtue” of religious faith.

 

[exnihilo]

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen any visions of God or the supernatural in general? Just how vivid and detailed was the vision, if so?

So it seems to me that you are applying an unfair double standard against skeptics here.

I might have had such a vision as a child and my father has had one. For my father the experience was very strong and unusual involving a brilliant light and a feeling of utter peace.

I am not applying an unfair double standard because I think believers have the same human tendency to construct arguments to believe what they want to believe. I just happened to only mention skeptics.

Anyway, I would find this discovery more peculiar if humans had a predisposition to believe in the Christian God and afterlife specifically. If I had been raised in a non-Christian environment, I probably would not have arrived at the conclusion that a god exists who happens to think that homosexuality is an abomination, or that I was in danger of going to a lake of fire after death.

This is difficult. If all religion is wrong then someone came up with the popular religions and many people seem willing to believe. I certainly agree that most people take the religion of their culture. But there are many folks who convert to another religion. Those are the most interesting cases.

It is, to the extent that those falsehoods are comforting in some way. Is it any coincidence that there does not exist a religion that teaches that every single human being must mutilate him/herself for no reason whatsoever?

Humans may be comforted by lies. But if so we need to do some radical things like get rid of democracy. What could be worse than a political system that relies on the will of the mass of humanity which so easily accepts and finds comfort in a lie?

There have been some religions that have required a lot from the adherents. But there is always a reason behind any demand. It might not be a good reason to you or me, but then we have to consider why it is people believe what they do.

I don’t make the only condition under which Christianity could be true ridiculous. (Christianity itself does that, as far as I am concerned.) It would not be ridiculous if God simply told every human being of his existence in a straightforward manner. It would conflict with what we know about this world currently, yes, but one would expect that in a religion in which the supernatural exists.

God will of course be as direct as He sees fit to be for His purpose. It would be wrong for anyone to think that God should conform to his wishes. But again I say that even if a person stated what kind of direct evidence they wanted it is very likely that same person, if they discovered that evidence, would explain it away. I’m quite sure of that because I know I’m not unique and I do just that myself concerning things I dont want to believe are true.

 

[exnihilo]

If you’re saying that some people can’t help believing in gods, then I can’t argue with that. But this is because those people put their own subjective opinions and desires ahead of the objective facts of scientific discovery. There is no objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

What is the scientific test for God? How can the lack of scientific evidence be of any matter if no test has been run? But in truth there is evidence in existence itself and the fact that the universe came into being and is not eternal. Anyway philosophy and theology are the proper disciplines for learning about God. You wouldn’t go to a scientist to get you taxes done would you?

I don’t think that it’s reasonable to draw a comparison between deity-believers and those who feel emotional and physical attraction to another person. I’m not sure why you’ve drawn a distinction against homosexuals here - they’re just people like anybody else, with emotions like anybody else. One has no more right to scrutinise their desires and actions than those of heterosexuals.

I think that people do act on their desires because they want to - why else? I have no truck with anybody who wants to believe in a deity, as long as they don’t try and impinge their beliefs on others and tell them how to live their lives. And I think that if they publicly claim their belief to be true, then their claims should be freely accessible to scrutiny and critical assessment.

First I’d ask can people desire, in the sense of have a need to fulfill, something that does not really exist? And if so, how can humans who are according to materialists the result of necessity develop a necessary longing for that which does not exist? It would be like humans having a need for water when water does not really exist.

The point regarding homosexuality is that people claim that homosexuals have an inherent desire to relate sexually to those of the same sex. The condition of desire is asserted as being uncontrollable.

In this discussion you said people believe in God because they want to. It appears that people have an inherent desire to believe in God. This would be uncontrollable, especially for the evolutionist.

But in this case (belief in God) the evolutionist might say that this desire is bad and the people should give it up. And they could also make the claim that the only reason the people believe in God is because they want to (indeed they probably do want to fulfill their inborn desire). This would be the same as telling the homosexual the only reason he desires someone of the same sex is that he wants to. But I doubt many of the people who denigrate the belief in God as being inborn would dare to be so consistent.

 

[Planty_Business]

I might have had such a vision as a child and my father has had one. For my father the experience was very strong and unusual involving a brilliant light and a feeling of utter peace.

I do not doubt your or your father’s sincerity, but I find it difficult to think that your experiences were somehow more real than those of adherents of other religions. Take Joseph Smith, for example. Who’s to say his religious experience that led to the founding of Mormonism wasn’t as real as yours? I am simply not convinced by hearsay evidence like this.

This is difficult. If all religion is wrong then someone came up with the popular religions and many people seem willing to believe. I certainly agree that most people take the religion of their culture. But there are many folks who convert to another religion. Those are the most interesting cases.

Certainly, but why are cases of sincere Christians’ deconversion to atheism not “interesting” to you? I was one of them. I used to be a more faithful person than most other Catholics I knew (even adults). But then I took to heart the “be prepared to give a reason for your hope” verse, which led to my discovery that Christianity just doesn’t have such reasons. And here I am.

Humans may be comforted by lies. But if so we need to do some radical things like get rid of democracy. What could be worse than a political system that relies on the will of the mass of humanity which so easily accepts and finds comfort in a lie?

Now this is just silly. I’ll be the first to admit that I resent the power owned by many ignorant people in government (or other positions of authority). But that does not give me a right to attempt to overthrow democracy. For better or worse, all humans have faults, and all humans are ignorant about certain things. The job of the educational system is to ensure that the future leaders of society are not ignorant buffoons.

God will of course be as direct as He sees fit to be for His purpose. It would be wrong for anyone to think that God should conform to his wishes.

Sure, if God does indeed know best. But I have found no reason to think that God, if he is real, does know best. If anything, many of his decisions seem completely irresponsible. It would be one thing if God at least attempted to explain to us lowly, stupid (note the sarcasm) humans why he does what he does. But he hasn’t. According to Christianity, God just expects me to take it all on faith, and I cannot accept that as a valid reason.

But again I say that even if a person stated what kind of direct evidence they wanted it is very likely that same person, if they discovered that evidence, would explain it away. I’m quite sure of that because I know I’m not unique and I do just that myself concerning things I dont want to believe are true.

I agree, people on both sides of any issue tend to do that. But sometimes “explaining it away” is not a bad thing, if your explanations are logical. I don’t think that apologists’ explanations are logical.

 

[Planty_Business]

Catholicism is the most “hated” and most challenged religion for a reason. It is the real deal. That is why atheist posters come here, why waste time refuting lesser religions?

I would not say that Catholicism is the most hated religion. Islam and Protestant fundamentalism are, because they use their doctrines as a justification for atrocities. The Catholic Church does that as well, but to a lesser extent.

As I have already explained, I have not come here to “waste time refuting lesser religions”. I have come here because I care about the future of humanity, and I do not want humanity to devolve into an immoral cesspool at the hands of religions like this one. I was once a Catholic, and I know how it feels to be a Catholic. I can honestly say that I am much more happy and fulfilled without Catholicism. For instance, as a Catholic, I lived in mortal dread of the prospect of going to hell. I was terrified of something that almost certainly doesn’t exist. Heck, even the prospect of an eternity in heaven was disturbing to me. I did not find comfort in the idea of eternity.

This isn’t to say that the only reason I became an atheist is that I found Catholicism uncomfortable. Of course not. But I wanted to show you that I have practical reasons for actively opposing religion.

Have you read The Irrational Atheist? - it deals quite nicely with the "dangerous “virtue” of religious faith.

Honestly, no, but it sounds like the kind of book that Ray Comfort would write. Reading the reviews of the book by professional critics, I have found that the book’s tone is rather hostile and strident. Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?

In all seriousness, I have better reasons for being an atheist than the men that this book criticizes. Hitchens just uses emotional arguments. Dawkins’ central argument in “The God Delusion” is abysmal (a complex God must have evolved). Dennet and Harris are better, but they don’t seem to be skilled at debating with people like William Lane Craig. I respect Harris for his works on the relation between science and morality, but the arguments he uses against religion seem to be, like Hitchens’, based on the effects of religion, not the logical problems with it. “New Atheism” has failed, but atheism itself has won.

 

[buffalo]

I would not say that Catholicism is the most hated religion. Islam and Protestant fundamentalism are, because they use their doctrines as a justification for atrocities. The Catholic Church does that as well, but to a lesser extent.

As I have already explained, I have not come here to “waste time refuting lesser religions”. I have come here because I care about the future of humanity, and I do not want humanity to devolve into an immoral cesspool at the hands of religions like this one. I was once a Catholic, and I know how it feels to be a Catholic. I can honestly say that I am much more happy and fulfilled without Catholicism. For instance, as a Catholic, I lived in mortal dread of the prospect of going to hell. I was terrified of something that almost certainly doesn’t exist. Heck, even the prospect of an eternity in heaven was disturbing to me. I did not find comfort in the idea of eternity.

This isn’t to say that the only reason I became an atheist is that I found Catholicism uncomfortable. Of course not. But I wanted to show you that I have practical reasons for actively opposing religion.

Honestly, no, but it sounds like the kind of book that Ray Comfort would write. Reading the reviews of the book by professional critics, I have found that the book’s tone is rather hostile and strident. Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?

In all seriousness, I have better reasons for being an atheist than the men that this book criticizes. Hitchens just uses emotional arguments. Dawkins’ central argument in “The God Delusion” is abysmal (a complex God must have evolved). Dennet and Harris are better, but they don’t seem to be skilled at debating with people like William Lane Craig. I respect Harris for his works on the relation between science and morality, but the arguments he uses against religion seem to be, like Hitchens’, based on the effects of religion, not the logical problems with it. “New Atheism” has failed, but atheism itself has won.

List the 10 commandments you disagree with and why.

 

[cerad2]

List the 10 commandments you disagree with and why.

1. No other gods - Just plain silly if there is only one god and makes the one true god seem a bit petty.
2. No idols - punishing my grand kids because for praying to a rock? Yikes.
3. No swearing - Again, somewhat petty.
4. Sabbath - no thanks, and if my slaves want to work on Sunday then who am I to stop them.
5. Coveting - helps to motivate me
6. Adultery - not really concerned about what consenting adults do

The rest, honoring parents, no murder, stealing, false witness are fine. Really should have added prohibitions on slavery, wars of conquest, genocide, torture, maiming, etc but then the bible wouldn’t be nearly as interesting.

 

[exnihilo]

I do not doubt your or your father’s sincerity, but I find it difficult to think that your experiences were somehow more real than those of adherents of other religions. Take Joseph Smith, for example. Who’s to say his religious experience that led to the founding of Mormonism wasn’t as real as yours? I am simply not convinced by hearsay evidence like this.

My father’s experience is very compelling to me only because I know my father so well. He is very rational, exceptionally honest, and his experience did not actually make him a particularly devout Christian. His experience was not particularly Christian. It was merely a supernatural experience.

Personally I believe supernatural experiences are real because so many come from credible sources. This is the first step and only proves that there is something beyond the physical world. When judging the validity of any one particular experience one must exercise great skepticism. In fact I think the Catholic Church takes a very skeptical approach to religious experiences. I dismiss Joesph Smith because I believe Christianity to be thoroughly credible. I would approach with skepticism any persons claim of a Christian experience. I would approach any claim that is counter to orthodox Christianity as being very unlikely. Given my limited capacity to investigate I’d tend to dismiss them outright.

Certainly, but why are cases of sincere Christians’ deconversion to atheism not “interesting” to you? I was one of them. I used to be a more faithful person than most other Catholics I knew (even adults). But then I took to heart the “be prepared to give a reason for your hope” verse, which led to my discovery that Christianity just doesn’t have such reasons. And here I am.

I count those who fall away from faith as being interesting as well and just as interesting as those who convert to faith. I think knowledge and intellect can make faith difficult at times. Not through a fault in faith but because of the limitations of the human mind. Faith can often be easier for the simple minded. I personally struggle with not always being satisfied by explanations regarding faith. But if someone tried to explain to me morality without God I’d find that just as unsatisfying if thoroughly explored. Yet I would not give up believing that there truly is morality.

Now this is just silly. I’ll be the first to admit that I resent the power owned by many ignorant people in government (or other positions of authority). But that does not give me a right to attempt to overthrow democracy. For better or worse, all humans have faults, and all humans are ignorant about certain things. The job of the educational system is to ensure that the future leaders of society are not ignorant buffoons.

I dont see why it is silly. If the priest is just lying to the people by providing comforting lies what is the politician doing?

Also, the job of education, at least public education, is to produce workers who accept authority without question so that they will willingly engage in mind numbing work. That is the goal according to the rather truthful proponents of public education in the later part of the 19th century.

 

[Planty_Business]

My father’s experience is very compelling to me only because I know my father so well. He is very rational, exceptionally honest, and his experience did not actually make him a particularly devout Christian. His experience was not particularly Christian. It was merely a supernatural experience.

Personally I believe supernatural experiences are real because so many come from credible sources. This is the first step and only proves that there is something beyond the physical world. When judging the validity of any one particular experience one must exercise great skepticism. In fact I think the Catholic Church takes a very skeptical approach to religious experiences. I dismiss Joesph Smith because I believe Christianity to be thoroughly credible. I would approach with skepticism any persons claim of a Christian experience. I would approach any claim that is counter to orthodox Christianity as being very unlikely. Given my limited capacity to investigate I’d tend to dismiss them outright.

I do think that testimonies of supernatural experiences are interesting, and I am certainly more open to the idea that there is some vague form of afterlife than that the Christian afterlife exists. But who really knows for sure? The only afterlife with which I am concerned is the the lives of the people who will live after my own death. If you find these testimonies sufficiently convincing, good for you. Still, I think that a closed attitude towards beliefs that are “unorthodox Christianity” is not very sensible, mainly because I personally do not see reasons to think that any one sect of Christianity is the “real deal”. Catholicism probably is true if any Christian religion is true; even I will agree that history supports Catholicism more than Protestantism, especially Mormonism.

I count those who fall away from faith as being interesting as well and just as interesting as those who convert to faith. I think knowledge and intellect can make faith difficult at times. Not through a fault in faith but because of the limitations of the human mind. Faith can often be easier for the simple minded. I personally struggle with not always being satisfied by explanations regarding faith. But if someone tried to explain to me morality without God I’d find that just as unsatisfying if thoroughly explored. Yet I would not give up believing that there truly is morality.

Sure, I can understand having some level of tolerance for cognitive dissonance, on account of the fact that humans don’t know everything, and there are many ways to interpret the Bible. The problem for me came when that dissonance just grew to an absurd level, and I would be equally justified in believing Christianity at that point as I would be in believing creationism.

Even though I do not think that God is required for morality (even objective morality), I can understand being unsatisfied with secular moral philosophies. I have been researching such philosophies lately, and I do not consider moral nihilism an absolutely unacceptable possibility, even though my intuition may tell me otherwise.

That said, I find problems with theistic morality anyway, so it’s not as if these doubts about morality are also making me doubt metaphysical naturalism.

I dont see why it is silly. If the priest is just lying to the people by providing comforting lies what is the politician doing?

Ha, there may something to that! But then, at least from my secular perspective, the difference between the priest and the politician is that the priest’s lies are demonstrably false by examining the history of monotheistic religion, yet the priest believes them in his ignorance (but that is not the topic of this thread); the politician lies merely to save face. That, or he has good intentions to advance society, but his core ideals may be misguided.

Also, the job of education, at least public education, is to produce workers who accept authority without question so that they will willingly engage in mind numbing work. That is the goal according to the rather truthful proponents of public education in the later part of the 19th century.

Well, that’s rather cynical, if not truthful to some extent. I do think that the educational system requires major changes, but there have been several great minds throughout recent history that have established themselves as successful people even with a mediocre pre-university education.

 

[Planty_Business]

List the 10 commandments you disagree with and why.

I don’t see why this is relevant, but sure.

The second and third commandments I take issue with, because they are a testament to Yahweh’s ego and jealousy. I suppose that the first is justified, assuming Yahweh has given his people decent reasons to believe that he is the only God.

The fourth is iffy; obedience and respect toward one’s elders are good, but only to the extent that they earn that respect. I don’t think that authority should be unquestionably followed, as Yahweh is in the Old Testament.

The fifth is an excellent law; no arguments here. It is a bit ambiguous in its wording, however; does it imply that killing of other animals besides humans is immoral as well? Does it imply that killing is always wrong, regardless of circumstances?

The sixth is also okay, assuming both spouses do not want each other to be polyamorous. Catholics take this commandment to also mean “do not be unchaste”, however, so that part I disagree with; sexual responsibility is certainly important, but not the Catholic definition of chastity, which precludes all premarital sex, all artificial birth control, all sexual activity beyond light kissing between an unmarried couple, and homosexuality.

The seventh is also a great law.

To the extent that it means “do not lie unless it is necessary to save lives”, sure, the eighth commandment is good. As an actual law, this would be difficult to enforce, but I think honesty is important in human society.

The ninth and tenth commandments aren’t nearly important enough to warrant one fifth of the space on the list. I don’t think that lust in the mind is immoral as long as you don’t let that lust become an obsession or use that lust as a motivation to cheat on your spouse or commit rape. Jealousy isn’t so much immoral as it is imprudent. If you see something that someone more fortunate than you has, and you want, there’s nothing wrong with that if you use that feeling of desire as a motivation to legally buy or work for such a possession. To paraphrase George Carlin, “Coveting someone else’s goods is what drives the economy.” Envy of someone whose possessions or traits you will never own, however, will only lead to frustration, low self esteem, and even depression. Sometimes it will lead to theft.

So the main commandments I think that we could do without are #2, 3, 4, 9, and 10. I would replace those commandments with prohibitions against rape, slavery, child abuse, prejudice, and greed. This is all assuming that the basis of the first commandment (there exists a benevolent God) is true. In a secular society, that commandment would go out too.

 

[John21652]

… I just think that I have found the truth, and a view of the world that you will find far more intellectually and emotionally satisfying than any religion. Humans love to spread ideas and knowledge in hopes that they will effect positive changes in the way people think and act.

There is a difference between being interested in civilized debate with people of differing views, and thinking that their views are correct. I do the former because I care about society, and I know that society is negatively affected by the dangerous “virtue” of religious faith.

Incidentally, what, in the original post, tells us that God “sent his son to close the deal”?

Planty, could you please explain to me how it is that in this post you tell us you “…know that society is negatively affected by the dangerous “virtue” of religious faith”. Yet in a later post, post #51 you state you reject hearsay evidence. Do you have objective evidence to support your assertion that society is harmed by religious virtues, or is it that you are just giving us a personal opinion? After all, you do go to great lengths to explain how you de-converted from Christianity and supposedly arrived at a higher ‘truth’. Was this revealed to you through some form of revelatory experience, or did you simply arrive at these conclusions through your own subjective analysis of Christianity?

I have great trouble accepting that you arrived at such a conclusion through your own personal thought processes, because the history of Christianity is filled with great and wondrous examples of how virtues have helped societies to develop to their fullest potential. In fact, history is full of examples of entire societies and empires which have collapsed because moral virtues have been allowed to decline. So, if you could spare a minute, please expalin to me the source of your inspiration.

 

[buffalo]

1. No other gods - Just plain silly if there is only one god and makes the one true god seem a bit petty.
2. No idols - punishing my grand kids because for praying to a rock? Yikes.
3. No swearing - Again, somewhat petty.
4. Sabbath - no thanks, and if my slaves want to work on Sunday then who am I to stop them.
5. Coveting - helps to motivate me
6. Adultery - not really concerned about what consenting adults do

The rest, honoring parents, no murder, stealing, false witness are fine. Really should have added prohibitions on slavery, wars of conquest, genocide, torture, maiming, etc but then the bible wouldn’t be nearly as interesting.

You claimed you were once Catholic. Your reply indicates a very shallow understanding of the commandments.

Here is a full explanation.

Please read and then see if 1-6 still hold.