Thanks for posting this. I've added my thoughts below, which I hope
will be of interest to you...
> Some essential messages for my people (the human species globally)
> are:
Human solidarity has no official spokesperson.
> 1. I don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving,
> or try to be as much as possible within constraints of life.
What if they believe that it's okay to pretend to love another to gain
their trust for the purpose of betraying or hurting them later? This
is one reason why I think it's important to know what others believe.
> 2. The fundamental is to love; however this can not be always
> achieved and so one must at least strive to love. Messages that
> conflict with that sentence must be discarded or edited to no longer
> conflict.
That advocates censorship which is just another form of oppression.
> 3. Loving behaviour should be both within our species (including
> to other nationalities, races, spiritual paths, orientations, genders
> and ages, and with no instigation of war) and, though we would give
> our own species a "human family" edge, to members of other species
> and to each species as a unit and to the environment we are part of.
That suggestion seems reasonable.
> 4. If you communicate with a someone you must know the definition
> of that someone. A corollary is that, for non-atheists: if you follow
> a deity name (e.g. God) do not use the name blindly but know what it
> means.
This contradicts the desire you expressed in point 1 because people
can be defined, at least in part, by what they believe (and also by
what they don't believe).
> 5. There is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfect (or
> perfectly loving).
Can you prove that? The burden of proof for claims can be satisfied
with L.O.V.E. (Logical, Objective, Verifiable Evidence):
L.O.V.E.:
http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl
> 6. There are many possible paths up a mountain, and many such
> paths do in theory meet or exceed these messages and also my
> suggested UN/derived messages, partially in place at The United
> Nations now, e.g. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (but note
> that I take the "other status" of Article 2 to include sexual
> orientation, i.e. sexual orientation is a form of "other status")
> already in place.
That observation seems reasonable.
> 7. Don't take up a path unless it truly resonates with you, and
> have an individual connection with the path and not just blindly
> follow.
That's not compatible with capitalism, democracy, or survival
instincts, because in life there are many things people must do
regardless of whether they want to -- just ask any parent.
> 8. There should be an individual responsibility to be a seed of
> good.
That's subjective because "good" is subjective, but responsibility is
certainly important in the context of participating in most societies.
> 9. Believe anything that there is evidence for (but work to change
> it if it is not loving) and don't believe something that there is
> evidence against (but try to bring it into existence if it is loving)
> and feel free to believe anything you like that is loving (not
> harmful) and that has no evidence for or against it but don't shove
> such theories down anyone else's throat but feel free to share the
> beauty of them.
That conflicts with skepticism which is free to question anything,
including well-established facts (which can stand objectively on their
own merits assuming at least one flaw has not been discovered).
> 10. We are part of nature and not above nature.
Technological progress seems to contradict that.
> 11. There are some similarities between the lives (and in many
> cases message overlap to some extent too) of some past major pagan
> and major non-pagan figures (including Jesus) and me.
This is a moot point. It's not clear which person named Jesus you're
referring to as you didn't include a last name (many telephone books
feature entries for people who share that name).
> 12. Sex between incompatibles is an abomination, sex between
> compatibles is not, such as a gay man is compatible with another gay
> man but is not compatible with a woman so for him to have sex with a
> woman is an abomination but loving consensual compatible sex between
> gay men is not. And to have sex with someone while not thinking of
> that someone and instead thinking of another is also an abomination.
> Other forms of abomination are pedophilia, rape, incest with
> relatives closer than second cousin, and bestiality.
That conflicts with advocates for "willing consent," and also conflicts
with free thinking (people's thoughts should not be restricted no
matter what activity they're engaged in at the time).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist
in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-- Carl Sagan