Jack give me a nice complement, so I thought I'd add a remark (or two... one remark does tend to lead to another)on how & why I said what I did.

I have always (well, since about 11-12 when I began to even consider having opinions beyond what I was 'told') been a skeptic. Now, being a skeptic does NOT mean just blindly doubting stuff I don't like, but rather just wanting to know the reasoning & evidence for things where it is not intuitively obvious what is true or false.
In thinking this way, one sees that sometimes honest, intelligent people do disagree about stuff. Not about color or music or what is the best pie, but serious stuff about morality, historical accuracy and, of course, religious concerns regarding our very nature & origins. It is easy to see WHY people might grow up with different beliefs, given history and cultural variation: but it is seldom easy to see how to resolve their differences. It has been all-too-common in history for some to demand that others accept one set of definitions about the 'best' set of beliefs.... and there are horrendous stories in history about the results of trying to instill belief by force.

Ok...enough background... many eyes are beginning to glaze over already, no doubt. So- what to do? You ALL see.. or have experience.. of how some decide how & what to believe and how to cope with it all.
I set out to find out how to even decide to think about deciding... the process commonly known as Philosophy. Of course, even there no consensus exists about the 'best' approach, but some ways of thinking have attained pretty good status... including one general approach best exemplified by Immanuel Kant in what is called The Categorical Imperative.
There's a lot of reading there, and it leads to a lot more reading if one wants to follow many lines of reasoning... but to put it as simply as possible, Kant thought that with enough care, we (humans) could develop an **objective** system for determining moral decisions without the artificial layers of some religious or cultural background. Of course, it is impossible to do ANY thinking about it all without some awareness OF history and the variety of approaches... but Kant claimed, with VERY complex language and reasoning, that sane, decent behavior could be worked out in a logically neutral manner. Nothing he said can be *directly* used to prevent crime, war & stupid behavior, of course, but a little delving into the basic approach can ..ummm... provide a way to read articles like the one linked in the original post to this thread!
(see?... I DID get around to something relevant... I hope.) And that is why I was concerned about the very use of the word 'commandments' and the linguistic linking of 'atheist' and 'non-believer'........

(all those dots indicate 'more'... but I'm sure that is plenty for now!~)