Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one is "free from religion", an a nihilist who wishes to rape and murder unabated may desire to be "free" from religion, but the realty is that, were he to attempt these things, he will have religion imposed on him via the Common Law and criminal trial imposed on him whether he likes it not.The idiocy of the thread premise is illustrated by the question: who will prohibit those free from religion from having children, the government?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?
And yes, it’s un-Constitutional for the government to seek to prohibit a class of persons from having children.
Common Law is not Religious. It is secular.No one is "free from religion", an a nihilist who wishes to rape and murder unabated may desire to be "free" from religion, but the realty is that, were he to attempt these things, he will have religion imposed on him via the Common Law and criminal trial imposed on him whether he likes it not.The idiocy of the thread premise is illustrated by the question: who will prohibit those free from religion from having children, the government?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?
And yes, it’s un-Constitutional for the government to seek to prohibit a class of persons from having children.
No one is "free from religion", an a nihilist who wishes to rape and murder unabated may desire to be "free" from religion, but the realty is that, were he to attempt these things, he will have religion imposed on him via the Common Law and criminal trial imposed on him whether he likes it not.The idiocy of the thread premise is illustrated by the question: who will prohibit those free from religion from having children, the government?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?
And yes, it’s un-Constitutional for the government to seek to prohibit a class of persons from having children.
Atheism
2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58
2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65
Agnosticism
2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The first commandment
Atheists are in a big hurry to dismantle our country's system and culture, since it imposes a moral standard that they hate. Atheism in our political landscape has naturally merged with commie ideology, since they both hate everything that America was founded upon, and what it represents. As long as Christianity and our bill of rights exist, commies (/atheists) are exposed to the world as the worthless creatures they are.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?
Atheists are in a big hurry to dismantle our country's system and culture, since it imposes a moral standard that they hate. Atheism in our political landscape has naturally merged with commie ideology, since they both hate everything that America was founded upon, and what it represents. As long as Christianity and our bill of rights exist, commies (/atheists) are exposed to the world as the worthless creatures they are.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?
Interference with how Atheists raise their children would only help to dismantle the very freedom that exposes what kind of low trash atheists (/commies) are. I do not know of anyway to treat the Atheist/commie cancer that is destroying our society that aligns with our bill of rights and the bible, but forcibly intercepting their children for reprogramming them could work. Forcibly neutering them could work too..
No one is "free from religion", an a nihilist who wishes to rape and murder unabated may desire to be "free" from religion, but the realty is that, were he to attempt these things, he will have religion imposed on him via the Common Law and criminal trial imposed on him whether he likes it not.
You are a commie and you are hijacking the concept of moral status. Commies hate to be exposed as the commies and atheists that they are, so you will keep making claims to judeo Christian moral standards.Atheists are in a big hurry to dismantle our country's system and culture, since it imposes a moral standard that they hate. Atheism in our political landscape has naturally merged with commie ideology, since they both hate everything that America was founded upon, and what it represents. As long as Christianity and our bill of rights exist, commies (/atheists) are exposed to the world as the worthless creatures they are.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?
Interference with how Atheists raise their children would only help to dismantle the very freedom that exposes what kind of low trash atheists (/commies) are. I do not know of anyway to treat the Atheist/commie cancer that is destroying our society that aligns with our bill of rights and the bible, but forcibly intercepting their children for reprogramming them could work. Forcibly neutering them could work too..
Jeez, talk about blind bullshit.
First of all, the fact that I do not believe in any God, does not make me unAmerican. It does not impose a moral standard I hate.
Also, I am a very moral person. And I stand on my morals and principles without the threat of eternity in Hell. I have known too many low trash Christians in my life to buy your assertians about atheists.
We build the shining city on a hill, and atheists dismantle it. That's what commies do.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
They believe in the fairy tale of not believing in fairy tales.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
We build the shining city on a hill, and atheists dismantle it. That's what commies do.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
They believe in the fairy tale of not believing in fairy tales.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
When in reality, whatever they childishly or erroneous refer to as fairy tales to begin with, they just substitute for some other childish and simplistic Jungian archetype, whether simple folk wisdom as old, anti-intellectual, and cliché as Epicurus, or other false, erroneous, and fictitious simplifications of or about whatever other childish or simplistic beliefs, theories, philosophies, or axioms they purport to hold, never because it's true in some ultimate, mathematical sense, but solely because it serves as a simple folk or popular belief for a simplistic mind, too concerned and preoccupied by infantile things like the latest TV show, or whatever their 6th grade reading level or barely 100 IQ makes palatable for them and other socially apathetic and maligned individuals.
Most of the cathedrals are wonderful historical examples of architecture, even if one was simply donating to it or patronizing it for its wonderful examples of architecture, engineering, craftsmanship or so on, that to me would seem like a very legitimate charitable cause.We build the shining city on a hill, and atheists dismantle it. That's what commies do.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
You build crappy cathedrals that take money from suckers
Money that would have been better spent helping the poor, on education, healthcareMost of the cathedrals are wonderful historical examples of architecture, even if one was simply donating to it or patronizing it for its wonderful examples of architecture, engineering, craftsmanship or so on, that to me would seem like a very legitimate charitable cause.We build the shining city on a hill, and atheists dismantle it. That's what commies do.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
You build crappy cathedrals that take money from suckers
No more "suckerly" than paying for overpriced popcorn and a bad flick at the local movie theater.
Christ himself seemed to be patron of the arts, having been very protective of his temple
If you're simply talking about a simple little archetypical image or Jungian symbol, whether what you mentioned, or any cartoon character on TV, for example, you're right in as far as the symbolism goes.They believe in the fairy tale of not believing in fairy tales.Atheists make the best parents
They don’t believe in fairy tales
When in reality, whatever they childishly or erroneous refer to as fairy tales to begin with, they just substitute for some other childish and simplistic Jungian archetype, whether simple folk wisdom as old, anti-intellectual, and cliché as Epicurus, or other false, erroneous, and fictitious simplifications of or about whatever other childish or simplistic beliefs, theories, philosophies, or axioms they purport to hold, never because it's true in some ultimate, mathematical sense, but solely because it serves as a simple folk or popular belief for a simplistic mind, too concerned and preoccupied by infantile things like the latest TV show, or whatever their 6th grade reading level or barely 100 IQ makes palatable for them and other socially apathetic and maligned individuals.
Fairies, gnomes and elves
Angels, demons and gods
No difference
