Should atheists be allowed to have children?

[ding]

Just like Genesis said.

 

[Questioner]

Saint Nicholas, who the Santa Claus character is inspired by, was a Christian saint known for giving of gifts to children:

Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia

Again, at this point I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or intentionally being obstinante.

You're still just conflating a simplistic image or archetype of a "god" with the actual abstract entity or concept which the image represents.

That would be as silly and nonsensical as claiming a belief or theory about extraterrestrial life is the same as believing that "Marvin the Martian" actually exists, or that extraterrestrial life would look identical to Marvin the Martian.

Actually, you are being just stupid

No, again, you're being decidedly stupid.
Expecting others to believe your tales of magical beings

Now you're falsely conflating mythology, historical or otherwise, and again using the silly term "magical" while being too stupid to know what is.

It was pointed out for you, at a 6th grade reading level which you could hopefully understand, that a symbol or "icongraphic" image representing a god or other type of being, or one like a Marvin the Martian cartoon, representing an alien - is not the "same thing" as the abstraction or mental concept which the image or icon represents.

Do you understand now, dum dum, or do I have to further simply it some more?

No other way to describe a creature that creates functioning living creatures out of thin air

poof.....there is a chicken
Poof....there is a moo cow
Poof....there is a dinosaur

Poof... there is a universe

Now you are getting it[/QUOTE]
That's of course, stupid by the same logic or rationale.

If the argument is something coming from nothing without prior cause or effect, showing the philosophical dishonesty and duplicity here.

 

[Questioner]

Just like Genesis said.

My understanding is that Genesis asserted God as a prior cause.

Even then, one could go further back and argue that God had no prior cause.

However, if the argument is based on the assertion that there must be a prior cause to begin with, then applying this to, creatures, for example but not the universe itself is rather logically inconsistent.

It just seems some people prefer one axiom over the other, for some reason, personal, emotional, sentimental, or otherwise.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Wow. What a stupid argument, OP.

 

[XponentialChaos]

"People I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to have children."

Good luck with that.

 

[Kilroy2]

other side of the coin

it is an estimate but nearly 700,000 children are abused annually

are they all atheist

I don't think you're particularly bright on that one, if it's just that simplistic "all children are born atheist", which has been countered by various sources such as Oxford University.

By the same tolken then, all children are born not speaking English, or knowing what the laws of their state are, or what Newtonian physics is until they are "indoctrinated" into it, so what's your point?

no as stories about people who child had died for lack of a vaccination because of parents religious beliefs are a reality

That's of course rather silly and dichotomic, the belief that children should be vaccinated, or should not die, is of course a religious belief in itself, or faith that human life, such as those of children is worth something.

As far as vaccines go, potentially harmful side effects of vaccines have been documented by the Medical college of Philadelphia and others, which manufacturing companies naturally putting out propaganda in fear of potential lawsuits, so the silly notion that a skepticism toward vaccines is something inherently "religious", or the silly and false dichotomies that "religious" beliefs somehow exist "in a vacuum" in isolation from the facts, information, and pragmaticism available is rather silly to begin with.

Much as how modern systems, such as those of law and government, like the entire Common Law system itself, developed from older legal systems and moral beliefs and axioms, including "religious ones", such as the Golden Rule and all; religious "beliefs" not having merely arisen "in a vacuum" in isolation from others.

other stories exist that parents who claim a religious belief have cause the death of their children

Yes, the religious belief that saving lives through vaccines, could potentially cause a death in the event of it having a harmful medical side effect as documented by universities and researchers such as Philadelphia's medical college, but of course, this may just be an unavoidable risk and reality of life.

Forget the topic of your discussion that you started

Should atheists be allowed to have children?

I just pointed out that its not a matter of not believing in a God

"Some people who do believe in God should not have children"

whether we are born with a blank slate or whether we are already programmed to be all that we are programmed to be

is irrelevant as parents can and do exert controls that can either nurture or destroy an individual

yet that what parents do or fail to do

Which is worst to have a child die when you could have done something or have a child die who had a medical intervention but something went wrong

either way it was meant to be and second guessing is useless

 

[daveman]

Atheists teach their children about Santa Clause, but tell them the truth once they are old enough

Christians lie to their kids their whole lives

Well, the strange thing about your choice is if you are right and the Christians are wrong, then you probably will not know as you'll be dead and that was all there is.

For example, Carl Sagan believed in alien life, but it wasn't found in his lifetime. He died without knowing. Stephen Hawking believed in multiverses, but they weren't found in his lifetime. He died without knowing. Is there anything that you believe such as abiogenesis that you think will be found in your lifetime?

However, if the Bible, i.e. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, is right, then you will know you were wrong before you leave Earth. It's already written that you and everyone will know from the past, present, and future. All eyes will see. Thus, everything will be settlef on Earth before the final judgement. That trumps the greatest thing that an atheist ever said.

Very true

You won’t know if you wasted a lifetime worshiping an imaginary creature until you are gone

I'd like you to think about that for a full, solid minute.

You're claiming that you will know and understand there is no god and no afterlife after you die. You will retain consciousness and self-awareness sufficient to realize you were wrong. After you've died. With no metaphysical framework for your mind to exist in.

You really wanna stick with that? It'd be easier if you just admitted you're screeching NUH UH like a small child.

Don’t look at me

Not my magical creature

So, in summary, you fucked up -- and it's somebody else's fault. Typical leftist.

 

[Bezukhov]

Should atheists be allowed to have children?

Didn't Jesus say:
"Seize earthly political power and use it to take children away from parents who don't believe as you do!!!"

 

[EvMetro]

"People I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to have children."

I see quote marks, but no quote box. Who are you quoting here with this exact phrase?

 

[XponentialChaos]

"People I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to have children."

I see quote marks, but no quote box. Who are you quoting here with this exact phrase?

Paraphrasing OP.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, you are being just stupid

No, again, you're being decidedly stupid.
Expecting others to believe your tales of magical beings

Now you're falsely conflating mythology, historical or otherwise, and again using the silly term "magical" while being too stupid to know what is.

It was pointed out for you, at a 6th grade reading level which you could hopefully understand, that a symbol or "icongraphic" image representing a god or other type of being, or one like a Marvin the Martian cartoon, representing an alien - is not the "same thing" as the abstraction or mental concept which the image or icon represents.

Do you understand now, dum dum, or do I have to further simply it some more?

No other way to describe a creature that creates functioning living creatures out of thin air

poof.....there is a chicken
Poof....there is a moo cow
Poof....there is a dinosaur

Poof... there is a universe

Now you are getting it

That's of course, stupid by the same logic or rationale.

If the argument is something coming from nothing without prior cause or effect, showing the philosophical dishonesty and duplicity here.[/QUOTE]

The universe was created
We know that

The idea that Mr Magic was involved is simplistic

 

[james bond]

Atheists teach their children about Santa Clause, but tell them the truth once they are old enough

Saint Nicholas, who the Santa Claus character is inspired by, was a Christian saint known for giving of gifts to children:

Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia

Christians lie to their kids their whole lives

Again, at this point I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or intentionally being obstinante.

You're still just conflating a simplistic image or archetype of a "god" with the actual abstract entity or concept which the image represents.

That would be as silly and nonsensical as claiming a belief or theory about extraterrestrial life is the same as believing that "Marvin the Martian" actually exists, or that extraterrestrial life would look identical to Marvin the Martian.

Actually, you are being just stupid

No, again, you're being decidedly stupid.
Expecting others to believe your tales of magical beings

Now you're falsely conflating mythology, historical or otherwise, and again using the silly term "magical" while being too stupid to know what is.

It was pointed out for you, at a 6th grade reading level which you could hopefully understand, that a symbol or "icongraphic" image representing a god or other type of being, or one like a Marvin the Martian cartoon, representing an alien - is not the "same thing" as the abstraction or mental concept which the image or icon represents.

Do you understand now, dum dum, or do I have to further simply it some more?

No other way to describe a creature that creates functioning living creatures out of thin air

poof.....there is a chicken
Poof....there is a moo cow
Poof....there is a dinosaur[/QUOTE]

It's easy to visualize Jesus the creator doing that.

While Stephen Hawking kicked the bucket trying to find evidence of multiverses popping into existence out of invisible wormholes and nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists teach their children about Santa Clause, but tell them the truth once they are old enough

Saint Nicholas, who the Santa Claus character is inspired by, was a Christian saint known for giving of gifts to children:

Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia

Christians lie to their kids their whole lives

Again, at this point I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or intentionally being obstinante.

You're still just conflating a simplistic image or archetype of a "god" with the actual abstract entity or concept which the image represents.

That would be as silly and nonsensical as claiming a belief or theory about extraterrestrial life is the same as believing that "Marvin the Martian" actually exists, or that extraterrestrial life would look identical to Marvin the Martian.

Actually, you are being just stupid

No, again, you're being decidedly stupid.
Expecting others to believe your tales of magical beings

Now you're falsely conflating mythology, historical or otherwise, and again using the silly term "magical" while being too stupid to know what is.

It was pointed out for you, at a 6th grade reading level which you could hopefully understand, that a symbol or "icongraphic" image representing a god or other type of being, or one like a Marvin the Martian cartoon, representing an alien - is not the "same thing" as the abstraction or mental concept which the image or icon represents.

Do you understand now, dum dum, or do I have to further simply it some more?

No other way to describe a creature that creates functioning living creatures out of thin air

poof.....there is a chicken
Poof....there is a moo cow
Poof....there is a dinosaur

It's easy to visualize Jesus the creator doing that.

While Stephen Hawking kicked the bucket trying to find evidence of multiverses popping into existence out of invisible wormholes and nothing.[/QUOTE]
Jesus was not the creator

 

[james bond]

Jesus was not the creator

Wrong again rightwinger. Maybe you should change your handle to wrongwinger as it is more descriptive. Yes he was. You miss the key points of the Bible. God the Father instructed Jesus to carry out the creation.

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus was not the creator

Wrong again rightwinger. Maybe you should change your handle to wrongwinger as it is more descriptive. Yes he was. You miss the key points of the Bible. God the Father instructed Jesus to carry out the creation.

Wow

Time warp

You guys are Goofy

If he was born of the creator, what did we need a Virgin for?

 

[james bond]

Jesus was not the creator

Wrong again rightwinger. Maybe you should change your handle to wrongwinger as it is more descriptive. Yes he was. You miss the key points of the Bible. God the Father instructed Jesus to carry out the creation.

Wow

Time warp

You guys are Goofy

I thought you were the one who went to parochial school or grew up Christian.

 

[EvMetro]

"People I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to have children."

I see quote marks, but no quote box. Who are you quoting here with this exact phrase?

Paraphrasing OP.

Have you been taking lessons from pencil neck?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

The Jewish religion teaches that Jews are God'e chosen people. Islam teaches that Jews should be killed. In order for one of these religions to be right, the other must be wrong. No two ways about it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

"People I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to have children."

I see quote marks, but no quote box. Who are you quoting here with this exact phrase?

Paraphrasing OP.

Have you been taking lessons from pencil neck?

I don't know who you're referring to.

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus was not the creator

Wrong again rightwinger. Maybe you should change your handle to wrongwinger as it is more descriptive. Yes he was. You miss the key points of the Bible. God the Father instructed Jesus to carry out the creation.

Wow

Time warp

You guys are Goofy

I thought you were the one who went to parochial school or grew up Christian.

Catholic, never got it in Sunday School
You don’t really believe that Goofy stuff do you?
Kind of Lord of the Rings