The truth foundation isn't relevant? Follow laws that aren't true to begin with? But hey, add the qualifier "remove God" while your at it, willya. That's the whole point isn't it? Whatever law it is, be it true or false, just as long as God has nothing to do with it, is fine by you.
Yes. I seem to remember some quotes on the road about laws - "Is it fair to all concerned?", etc. Laws are man-made - for the benefit of man. I think that's better to take ownership of what you implement as a law. So that we blame lawmakers instead of God for crappy laws. Instead of a law being "true" because it was influenced/given by "God". What do you do with a psychopath serial killer when "God says thou shalt not k*ll"? - Smile and turn the other cheek?
But there are 6 billion "yous" and counting. So which "you" will outweigh another "you" when their "want" come into conflict? I don't think anyone would want to have been aborted, but some women feel their "want" is being infringed upon if you ban abortion. Which weighs more?
That's the beauty of "man-made" laws. "Some" women will just have to live with what "more" women "think" is a better law for some time until "more" women "think" that abortion is a "better" law. Isn't that better than God is against your "proposed law" so it will never be one?
Ah, so useless people who can not "give" anything do not count?
Who said? Like I said put yourself in their shoes. What if you have a kid who's "useless"? What do you want for him? You "feel obligated" is an automatic response. When you're "rich", you also "feel obligated" to help out the less fortunate ones, don't you? Or maybe "you" don't feel it? Do I "feel obligated" to help those who do not even try to help themselves and use a life of crime to live? At least you give of your own volition instead of "God's" code/law to give 10% or whatever amount.
And what do we do with people like this? There are many people like this, you know. What kind of reciprocity do we inflict upon them? Beat them up?
Get a consensus about laws to deal with this. Is this automatic? No, it all depends on backgrounds and progress of man.
Pragmatism? Reciprocity is "pragmatic"? And it doesn't matter if this statement is true or false, right?
Let me help you out.
First state an axiom we can all agree is true (axioms are accepted to be true by convention which is ultimately nothing more than an agreement between men). From this axiom start building your case. State a starting premise (again that we can all agree upon). Then from there, form your moral code.
For example, the US constitution is primarily founded upon the premise which is the Bill of Rights. The framers of the US constitution agreed between themselves that all items on that list is true. Tis the reason that no law in the US can ever be passed that supersedes or contradicts any item on that list. But as I have stated before, the US constitution was framed by men who are mostly (if not entirely) believers in God. So as an atheist, this does not bother you (given that the Philippine Constitution was patterned after the US Constitution)? The laws of the land, currently, is still the same law (more or less), we theists believe was handed by God Himself. So what good is your atheism then? Ah, yes, just remove God from the credits and it is all fine by you. Fine then. God does not exist, end of story.
"Framers" - a group of people who we chose to represent the "people" to create the laws of the land? Did these framers think that they should believe in one and the same God? To be fair and just, the constitution had to be written in spite of different beliefs. Don't you agree?http://www.constitut...rg/constit_.htmhttp://topics.law.co...du/constitutionhttp://www.usconstit...nstnot.html#god
Why is there divorce in the US and not in the Philippines (you said we patterned our constitution with them)? God's code/law said that no one can break a married couple. I'd rather create laws because they improve the lives of the people here on earth or a specific society.
Atheism allows you to break the clamps/boundaries that limit man. Free-will isn't handicapped by believing that God handed his moral code/laws to man? Why do some "people" have no belief in doctors but believe God will cure their illness?
Who's god is better when two God believing countries fight a war against each other? I'd rather blame the leaders of those countries rather than blame their belief in a particular God.
I ask you when you are in the sea with a great white shark. Will you k*ll the shark to live? Or does your belief in God tell you that the shark has the right to eat you because you are in his domain? After all, God created the shark.
You don't have to help me out. I gave my opinion on the matter.
Why do you follow/believe God's moral code? Even thinking "evil" thoughts is a sin, right? But you're not breaking the law of man by just thinking.
Edited by complicated8, 06 September 2010 - 08:39 AM.