Should atheists be allowed to express their beliefs (or lack thereof) in public?

[Questioner]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

 

[Penelope]

No Evangelicals should not be allowed to be in politics or be street preachers.

 

[Jackson]

Didn't have top read the post. Answer: Yes

 

[Questioner]

No Evangelicals should not be allowed to be in politics or be street preachers.

Eventually the false dictomy between "politics" and "religion" should merely be abolished, and religious and moral tests made requirements for holding office.

The Framers and many of their archaic axioms, being a product of that rather old little intellectual movement known as the enlightenment, so often overrated and superstitiously revered - are relics from an archaic day and age, and thankfully they aren't idols to be worship, so of course we can simply amend or change our systems of government and Construction, into something specifically religious and moral.

Christ was looked up to by the Founders themselves; even during the days of ancient Rome, he was ahead of them, and his time, and would have made a far better statemen than any of them, a perfect candidate for a benevolent theocrat if there ever was one.

 

[Auld Phart]

As long as the First Amendment gives us the Right to Free Speech, they have the Right to Speak in public.

Don't like it?

Buy earplugs.

 

[Questioner]

Didn't have top read the post. Answer: Yes

I have barely if any "human" respect for atheists whatsoever, and am tempted to believe that by the virtue of their own worthlessness and nihilism they don't deserve any "rights" at all, human, animal, or otherwise, no more rights than a plague in need of sanitation.

The religious, moral, spiritual, and virtuous are inherently superior to atheists, some as high above an atheist as mankind itself is above the apes, and there is no reason we should give them the pretense of equality at all, only men and women of God should be held to be equal, atheists, no more equal than slaves or chattle, with is all their worthless, nihilism, and moral degeneracy is good for.

If there is a new group to be made in the deplorables of civilized societies in America and the West, it should be atheists and their cancerous, verminous, morally infectious and contageous ilk.

 

[Questioner]

As long as the First Amendment gives us the Right to Free Speech, they have the Right to Speak in public.

Don't like it?

Buy earplugs.

Amend it and deny atheists "freez peach", problem solved. Limit free speech to Godly men and women in service of god and the cosmos, not heathen and atheistic degeneracy and babble.

 

[Auld Phart]

Didn't have top read the post. Answer: Yes

I have barely if any "human" respect for atheists whatsoever, and am tempted to believe that by the virtue of their own worthlessness and nihilism they don't deserve any "rights" at all, human, animal, or otherwise, no more rights than a plague in need of sanitation.

The religious, moral, spiritual, and virtuous are inherently superior to atheists, some as high above an atheist as mankind itself is above the apes, and there is no reason we should give them the pretense of equality at all, only men and women of God should be held to be equal, atheists, no more equal than slaves or chattle, with is all their worthless, nihilism, and moral degeneracy is good for.

If there is a new group to be made in the deplorables of civilized societies in America and the West, it should be atheists and their cancerous, verminous, morally infectious and contageous ilk.

hey don't deserve any "rights" at all, human, animal, or otherwise, no more rights than a plague in need of sanitation.

They have the same rights you do.

 

[Auld Phart]

As long as the First Amendment gives us the Right to Free Speech, they have the Right to Speak in public.

Don't like it?

Buy earplugs.

Amend it and deny atheists "freez peach", problem solved. Limit free speech to Godly men and women in service of god and the cosmos, not heathen and atheistic degeneracy and babble.

Nope


Do that, and then we'll have to curtail the rights of others.

Who are you going to take the right of free speech from next?

Blondes with blue eyes?

Germans?

Blacks?

Women?

 

[Questioner]

As long as the First Amendment gives us the Right to Free Speech, they have the Right to Speak in public.

Don't like it?

Buy earplugs.

Amend it and deny atheists "freez peach", problem solved. Limit free speech to Godly men and women in service of god and the cosmos, not heathen and atheistic degeneracy and babble.

Nope


Do that, and then we'll have to curtail the rights of others.

Who are you going to take the right of free speech from next?

Blondes with blue eyes?

Germans?

Blacks?

Women?

No just atheists and heathen

 

[hjmick]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

So, you think atheists are "intellectual and moral degenerates" and they should be "raping, murdering, tormenting children" or they aren't "very good at being" an atheist...

You're a fucking moron. In fact, everything in your post points to you being "morally degenerate" and "being shot or hunted," more so that any atheist I have ever met. Your above stated views are repugnant. This fact and the overall body of your posts since you joined this board in this current incarnation qualify you, again, as an individual who's views and opinions are unworthy of serious consideration.

May you burn in Hell along with the pedophile priests you ignore in your evaluations.

 

[Questioner]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

So, you think atheists are "intellectual and moral degenerates" and they should be "raping, murdering, tormenting children" or they aren't "very good at being" an atheist...

You're a fucking moron. In fact, everything in your post points to you being "morally degenerate" and "being shot or hunted," more so that any atheist I have ever met. Your above stated views are repugnant. This fact and the overall body of your posts since you joined this board in this current incarnation qualify you, again, as an individual who's views and opinions are unworthy of serious consideration.

May you burn in Hell along with the pedophile priests you ignore in your evaluations.

A pedophile priest isn't a true Christian.

A pedophile atheist is just being an atheist.

 

[bluzman61]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Yes, by all means, they should be allowed. Free speech is essential in any country.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Who's gonna stop me? You? Ha!

 

[bluzman61]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Who's gonna stop me? You? Ha!

You are MIGHTY DIM, T.T., MIGHTY DIM.............

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Who's gonna stop me? You? Ha!

You are MIGHTY DIM, T.T., MIGHTY DIM.............

I actually agree with your comment up above, tard. But you like to call people names because you're intellectually lacking. It's okay, bud. I see it all the time with the brainwashed.

 

[rightwinger]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Troll much?

 

[rightwinger]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Most civilized societies are abandoning Christianity.

Christianity is now becoming a crutch for poorly educated Third World Nations

 

[Questioner]

I can see a rationale for declaring atheism or the expressive of immoral and degenerate atheistic beliefs in public places an offense against the state, the public, and our common standards of decency.

Given the interrelation between anti-intellectual atheistic filth, and the moral and ethical vices and degeneracies it promotes and spreads, like a moral plague of sorts - justifying aberrant practices such as rape, murder, child molestation, pornography addiction, anti-intellectualism and cultural philistinism of sorts, not only an offense against God or the Supreme Being, but against society, our Common Law, and its religious principles and morals upon which it is founded and developed, such as the Golden Rule, respect for human's individuality, property, autonomy, family, and so forth.

Since atheists and other intellectual and moral degenerates renounce these things, favoring the moral nihilism and hedonism of evildoers like De Sade and Stirner, I'd argue that the very existence of an atheist, bold and damned enough to express his filty and immoral views and obesity in the public eye, is an offense in and of itself, and no state nor nation which values its own vitality, morality, decency, and power would have any reason to tolerate them at all.

In every 1st world nation, openly identifying as an atheist might very well be made as socially and morally repugnant and unacceptable as openly identifying as a pedophile, a rapist, a Nazi, a racist or racial supremacist, a terrorist.

Merely allowing an atheist to live at all, yet alone have the gall to spread his filth in the vicinity of morally superior men, women and children is more than he arguably even deserves, and more than many nations, past and present, would afford him - by the virtue of his atheism and depravity, he or she more or less renounces his humanity, his claims or factious "right" to even be considered "human" at all by superior members of society, rather being more akin to a feral and odious beast, to be tamed, scurried, shamed, and forced into the bare minimum of socially acceptable standards and behavior which otherwise would not differentiate him and his ilk from any other rapid and postulant beast, debatedly more worthy of being shot or hunted, than allowed to remain alive at all, at the expense of the oxygen of society's betters, let alone God or the Supreme Being itself.

One who claims to be an atheist, yet isn't raping, murdering, tormenting children, simply isn't very good at being one, whereas the opposite of course could be said of a Christian, a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, making one wonder if an atheist should be held on level of contempt beneath even that of an Islamist terrorist, and that the common despisement of such by everyone from good Christian men and women, Buddhist monks, and even said Islamic terrorists, is proof of their ultimate moral worthlessness in the cosmos, akin to feces, maggots, or bacteria in need of sanitation and desposal, more so than anything worth being called "life" to begin with in the hierarchy of God.

Troll much?

If I could get rid of rape, or get rid of atheism, I'd get rid of atheism, and doing so would likely eliminate rape consequentially; it merely being the practice and natural behavior of atheism.

No atheist can justify not being a rapist without appealing to religious values and principles to begin with, such as the Golden Rule and our Common Law system, which developed from older legal and religious systems to begin with.

 

[Gdjjr]

Run on sentences are not more convincing.