Should atheists be allowed to have children?

[Questioner]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, one of the things that I've found is that the more religious a place is, the more screwed up it is just under the surface.

 

[Penelope]

Ask Tramp and Tramp Jr.



Hegseth was divorced from his first wife, Meredith Schwarz, in 2009. He married his second wife, Samantha Deering, in 2010; they have three children.[10] During his marriage to Deering, Hegseth had a daughter with Fox executive producer Jennifer Rauchet, with whom he was having an extramarital relationship, in August 2017.[10] He and Deering divorced in August 2017. Hegseth and Rauchet married in August 2019.[36]
Pete Hegseth - Wikipedia

an evangelical who believes in family.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

People who think they can tell others if they should have children, shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

 

[WinterBorn]

What makes you think you have a say in whether atheists have children?

I am an atheist and raised 3 remarkable, well balanced kids, that have turned out to be remarkable, well-educated adults who add to our society.

Luckily you didn't have a say.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, while I'm not a particularly religious person, I do believe in God. I just think that He is too big to be contained in just one dogma or religion. Why? Because most religions say basically the same thing, there is a Creator, what we do in this life determines what happens next, there is something better and something worse based on how we live this life, love your neighbor, etc.

Personally? I think that God is a huge multifaceted being and each religion is just one reflection of one facet of Him.

Adhering to just one religion and telling others that they are wrong just because you don't believe they are right is not only limiting, but also keeps a person in ignorance, especially if certain things are considered blasphemous knowledge by whatever your belief system says.

Remember, all paths lead to the top of the mountain, no matter what direction you approach it from.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

I am an atheist and I fit none of those things, nor do my children. My atheism does not justify any such crimes as rape or murder. I do not need belief in a mythical being to tell me that these are wrong.

I have never known an atheist that "...fancies himself little more than a beast". Not one. You are just making shit up here.

 

[Questioner]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

I am an atheist and I fit none of those things, nor do my children. My atheism does not justify any such crimes as rape or murder. I do not need belief in a mythical being to tell me that these are wrong.

I have never known an atheist that "...fancies himself little more than a beast". Not one. You are just making shit up here.

I've seen enough of them on line that I believe they're "a thing", as well as enough worthless and nihilistic atheistic worldviews.

Most ugly, nihilistic atheists are fools, so naively and quaintly in service of nothing, and for nothing, not even bothering to ask or question the "why" behind it all, or why if these idiots believe that "life is meaningless", or that any devil or equivalent entity which they naively place their faith in would "favor" them in the slightest, particularily when they are not nearly as "evil" as they could be, if they devoted their whole life to it...

I just view them as a pawn in the devil's hands, or whatever worthless surrogate, philosophy, or morally nihilistic axiom takes the place of any literal "Devil" to begin with. Machiavelli seems to be a contemporary favorite of this naïve little children, ugly, petty, and historically insignificant as he was, much like his Jewish plagiarist Saul Alinsky, unable to come up with anything more original and less boring that Plato hadn't already debunked when such nonsense was spewed by Thrasmaychus in the ancient days in which he dreamed of his Republic.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

I am an atheist and I fit none of those things, nor do my children. My atheism does not justify any such crimes as rape or murder. I do not need belief in a mythical being to tell me that these are wrong.

I have never known an atheist that "...fancies himself little more than a beast". Not one. You are just making shit up here.

I've seen enough of them on line that I believe they're "a thing", as well as enough worthless and nihilistic atheistic worldviews.

Most ugly, nihilistic atheists are fools, so naively and quaintly in service of nothing, and for nothing, not even bothering to ask or question the "why" behind it all, or why if these idiots believe that "life is meaningless", or that any devil or equivalent entity which they naively place their faith in would "favor" them in the slightest, particularily when they are not nearly as "evil" as they could be, if they devoted their whole life to it...

I just view them as a pawn in the devil's hands, or whatever worthless surrogate, philosophy, or morally nihilistic axiom takes the place of any literal "Devil" to begin with. Machiavelli seems to be a contemporary favorite of this naïve little children, ugly, petty, and historically insignificant as he was, much like his Jewish plagiarist Saul Alinsky, unable to come up with anything more original and less boring that Plato hadn't already debunked when such nonsense was spewed by Thrasmaychus in the ancient days in which he dreamed of his Republic.

I think you should get out more.

Most atheists I know are very good members of our society. And when they help others, it is not out of fear of angering God if they don't. It is because they see a need.

I have also been told that fear of God is why people don't rape and murder. If you need an invisible threat to keep you from raping and murdering, something is wrong with you.

 

[Questioner]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

I am an atheist and I fit none of those things, nor do my children. My atheism does not justify any such crimes as rape or murder. I do not need belief in a mythical being to tell me that these are wrong.

I have never known an atheist that "...fancies himself little more than a beast". Not one. You are just making shit up here.

I've seen enough of them on line that I believe they're "a thing", as well as enough worthless and nihilistic atheistic worldviews.

Most ugly, nihilistic atheists are fools, so naively and quaintly in service of nothing, and for nothing, not even bothering to ask or question the "why" behind it all, or why if these idiots believe that "life is meaningless", or that any devil or equivalent entity which they naively place their faith in would "favor" them in the slightest, particularily when they are not nearly as "evil" as they could be, if they devoted their whole life to it...

I just view them as a pawn in the devil's hands, or whatever worthless surrogate, philosophy, or morally nihilistic axiom takes the place of any literal "Devil" to begin with. Machiavelli seems to be a contemporary favorite of this naïve little children, ugly, petty, and historically insignificant as he was, much like his Jewish plagiarist Saul Alinsky, unable to come up with anything more original and less boring that Plato hadn't already debunked when such nonsense was spewed by Thrasmaychus in the ancient days in which he dreamed of his Republic.

I think you should get out more.

Most atheists I know are very good members of our society. And when they help others, it is not out of fear of angering God if they don't. It is because they see a need.

I have also been told that fear of God is why people don't rape and murder. If you need an invisible threat to keep you from raping and murdering, something is wrong with you.

As far as the law is concerned, many would, or at least would potentially do so if not for restraint and fear of the law; some do not apparently mature beyond such as low level of morality and motivation, but I don't believe that's the case for everyone, no.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

I am an atheist and I fit none of those things, nor do my children. My atheism does not justify any such crimes as rape or murder. I do not need belief in a mythical being to tell me that these are wrong.

I have never known an atheist that "...fancies himself little more than a beast". Not one. You are just making shit up here.

I've seen enough of them on line that I believe they're "a thing", as well as enough worthless and nihilistic atheistic worldviews.

Most ugly, nihilistic atheists are fools, so naively and quaintly in service of nothing, and for nothing, not even bothering to ask or question the "why" behind it all, or why if these idiots believe that "life is meaningless", or that any devil or equivalent entity which they naively place their faith in would "favor" them in the slightest, particularily when they are not nearly as "evil" as they could be, if they devoted their whole life to it...

I just view them as a pawn in the devil's hands, or whatever worthless surrogate, philosophy, or morally nihilistic axiom takes the place of any literal "Devil" to begin with. Machiavelli seems to be a contemporary favorite of this naïve little children, ugly, petty, and historically insignificant as he was, much like his Jewish plagiarist Saul Alinsky, unable to come up with anything more original and less boring that Plato hadn't already debunked when such nonsense was spewed by Thrasmaychus in the ancient days in which he dreamed of his Republic.

I think you should get out more.

Most atheists I know are very good members of our society. And when they help others, it is not out of fear of angering God if they don't. It is because they see a need.

I have also been told that fear of God is why people don't rape and murder. If you need an invisible threat to keep you from raping and murdering, something is wrong with you.

As far as the law is concerned, many would, or at least would potentially do so if not for restraint and fear of the law; some do not apparently mature beyond such as low level of morality and motivation, but I don't believe that's the case for everyone, no.

I also think too many theists have murdered, raped or molested children to claim any moral high ground.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Yes they should be able to have children in my opinion. There is always the chance one day in the future that they will find Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

I am an atheist and raised 3 remarkable, well balanced kids, that have turned out to be remarkable, well-educated adults who add to our society.

I am a granddaughter of an atheist who had two productive children; though not an atheist myself, I married an atheist and we, too, have two productive children.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

The idiocy of the thread premise is illustrated by the question: who will prohibit those free from religion from having children, the government?

And yes, it’s un-Constitutional for the government to seek to prohibit a class of persons from having children.

 

[G.T.]

questioner is competing for the most frequent retarded OPs

 

[ABikerSailor]

questioner is competing for the most frequent retarded OPs

I wondered why he used such tortured logic in his posts. Now I know.

 

[G.T.]

questioner is competing for the most frequent retarded OPs

I wondered why he used such tortured logic in his posts. Now I know.

heshe is a troll. a sock, too

 

[White 6]

I'm a Christian, but you religious Holier-than- thou anti American constitution people are just nuts. The same constitution that grants us freedom of religion gives atheists freedom from your religious persecution.

 

[edthecynic]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

Ahhhhh, the pure seething HATE of Christianity in full display!
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

Here are some of the dangers of allowing atheists to raise or parent children, and rationale for having the removed from the state, perhaps transferred to superior religious families in many cases:

---

1. Moral nihilism - an atheistic worldview, could be used to justify rape, murder, pedophilia, and other illegal or immoral practices and worldviews, with notable atheists such as de Sade, or Max Stirner sharing such view.

2. Anarchy - Many atheistic worldviews make dangerous claims (anti-social claims, such as that children are "atheists" until society "indoctrinates them"). This, as above, is a dangerous and anarchic claim, as well as one which has been debunked by various studies, such as by the University of Oxford.

The reality, of course, as per the Common Law system, regardless of what children are "born with", or not - the state does legally impose a bare minimum threshold of "religion" and moral order upon people, whether children or adults, such as criminalizing rape, theft, murder, and so on, or other practices which would be potentially acceptable via an atheistic worldview; such as system may not be able to "make people moral", but it can, at least force them not to be outright "immoral".

Having evolved from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as Exodus, and incorporating religious morality, such as components of the Golden Rule, completely anti-thetical to many atheistic beliefs and worldviews.

3. Anti-intellectualism or cultural "philistinism; many atheists assert childish and idiotic views, such as that "life is meaningless", or that anything they "can't see with their own eyes" (e.x. mathematics, Newton's physical laws and abstractions) doesn't exist, or equate themselves with animals, despite the Common law and society mandating a higher level of morality and respect for other people.

This of course, is at odds with many of the legal and moral philosophers who helped to build and develop the society or societies we are a part of today, even "secular" ones, such as John Stuart Mill, who famously asserted that it is better to be a man (or woman) dissatisfied, than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied.

As an immoral atheist or heathen fancies himself little more than a beast, his worldview is immediately antithetical to society and the philosophy, incorporating many components of the philosophies of older societies and thinkers, many of which, such as the Golden Rule and its relation to the Common Law, of course being "Christian" or "religious" in that regard.

---

Based on these assertions, I see probable cause to assert that these worldview(s) of atheists are potentially not acceptable or compatible with the legal institutions of America or Britain, and could be grounds for criminalizing atheism or atheistic propaganda, or removing the children from atheistic homes on the grounds of criminal child abuse; as what could be more abusive than indoctrinating a child into a worldview which tolerates rape, murder, child molestation, and other aberrant things of that nature?

I am an atheist and I fit none of those things, nor do my children. My atheism does not justify any such crimes as rape or murder. I do not need belief in a mythical being to tell me that these are wrong.

I have never known an atheist that "...fancies himself little more than a beast". Not one. You are just making shit up here.

I've seen enough of them on line that I believe they're "a thing", as well as enough worthless and nihilistic atheistic worldviews.

Most ugly, nihilistic atheists are fools, so naively and quaintly in service of nothing, and for nothing, not even bothering to ask or question the "why" behind it all, or why if these idiots believe that "life is meaningless", or that any devil or equivalent entity which they naively place their faith in would "favor" them in the slightest, particularily when they are not nearly as "evil" as they could be, if they devoted their whole life to it...

I just view them as a pawn in the devil's hands, or whatever worthless surrogate, philosophy, or morally nihilistic axiom takes the place of any literal "Devil" to begin with. Machiavelli seems to be a contemporary favorite of this naïve little children, ugly, petty, and historically insignificant as he was, much like his Jewish plagiarist Saul Alinsky, unable to come up with anything more original and less boring that Plato hadn't already debunked when such nonsense was spewed by Thrasmaychus in the ancient days in which he dreamed of his Republic.

Keep that pure seething Christian HATE coming!