Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 85
- 50
- Banned
- #1
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?
---
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?