No, on further consideration, given the explanatory text, anti-theist/pro-theist sums op Laws 1+2 perfectly well. Your thesaurus is plainly fucked, Boru.

(December 3, 2020 at 1:39 pm)Lawz Wrote:

(December 3, 2020 at 1:05 pm)brewer Wrote: Why are you trying to control sexual relationships?

It's all in the OP and explanatory notes. I'm not in control, the Law (4) is. Also broken hearts and broken homes - seatbelts mandatory why?

Isn't the law your concept?

Have you read the explanatory notes for Law 4 @brewer, my esteemed associate? I deem Law 4 it to be superior to "no sex before marriage" and, our being lifeforms created through sex, an essential component of any faith is one regarding fidelity/faithfulness. It's all about sex (life) - true words, in a way, at least. Stone the adulterers - you prefer that? Of course not. The oppression of women due to fear of cuckoldry? Malala Yousafzai?

(December 3, 2020 at 1:56 pm)Lawz Wrote:

(December 3, 2020 at 1:47 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I'm going to guess that you are either from a broken home or you and your whoever broke a home and I bet it had to do with infidelity.  And your feelings are so touched that you want to make rules about when and with whom others have sex.  

Good luck with that.

You must have lived in a cave for the last 40 years if nobody you knew or heard of had been heartbroken (suicidal even) through being cheated on or a home broken through infidelity and all the fallout THAT entails.

Then you need to include all of the other things that cause relationships to fail, like lack of trust, finance issues, addictions, personality conflicts, ...........

Gonna be kind of hard to work all of those into an atheist dogma.

---

(December 3, 2020 at 6:20 pm)Lawz Wrote: Have you read the explanatory notes for Law 4 @brewer, my esteemed associate? I deem Law 4 it to be superior to "no sex before marriage" and, our being lifeforms created through sex, an essential component of any faith is one regarding fidelity/faithfulness. It's all about sex (life) - true words, in a way, at least. Stone the adulterers - you prefer that? Of course not. The oppression of women due to fear of cuckoldry? Malala Yousafzai?

What notes? I don't facebook.

You trying to make an atheist religion? You don't think that infidelity exists in other religions? Do I really need to go down that road.?

Here you go @brewer although these two "slabs" RE Law 4 are just a couple of link clicks away from the FB link in the OP...facebookophobic? :

---

(December 3, 2020 at 6:49 pm)Lawz Wrote: Here you go @brewer although these two "slabs" RE Law 4 are just a couple of link clicks away from the FB link in the OP...facebookophobic? :

---

---

---

First sex issues, then gender, then pregnancy. Thinking limited to monogamy hetero procreation terms. That has nothing to do with lack of a belief in a god.

You want to start your own religion, fine by me. I'd find it less distasteful if you dropped "atheist".

And do I catch a whiff of incel?

(December 3, 2020 at 6:49 pm)Lawz Wrote: Here you go @brewer although these two "slabs" RE Law 4 are just a couple of link clicks away from the FB link in the OP...facebookophobic? :

---

Pretending to be edgy is no substitute for having an actual personality.

Boru

(December 3, 2020 at 12:44 pm)Lawz Wrote: Law 4 = pro fidelity, anti infidelity

I can understand why people are pro fidelity. So if that's the main point your fourth law is after, that's understandable.

However, I'm not sure that making the rule that sexual partners have to be six weeks apart is really going to address the issue.

The default system in the US and UK these days seems to be "serial monogamy." People stay faithful to their partners as long as they feel the relationship is working for them, but when they feel it's time to change there's no great stigma involved. There is packaged pop-psychology language they can use as justification: "the relationship was no longer fulfilling my needs," etc. 

And I expect that rather than going immediately from one partner's house to another, six weeks is considered a seemly interval. So what you're advocating here seems very much compatible with the current status quo. 

The trouble is that such a system has its own dangers, and in the long run leads to a lot of what you're trying to avoid: broken homes, broken hearts, and promiscuity. Though the promiscuity may be more spaced out. 

We've all heard from troubled kids who are in such a system: "My mom's third husband didn't like me so I went to live with my dad but his girlfriend is my age and we didn't get along so I'm living in my car..." 

I don't see how your six-week rule avoids this.

(December 3, 2020 at 1:05 pm)brewer Wrote: 1. I don't need to be a member for my lack of belief.

You're a member of this forum for your lack of belief, just saying.

So a set of edicts for people who of the few things that could define them as a whole are those without edicts.

Fascinating. Good luck with that.

RAmen