Should atheists be allowed to have children?

[Questioner]

Want to know how to be free from religion? Simple...............study a few different ones, see where they are all the same,

Or see where they differ consirably.

and then realize that religion and morals are what the majority imposes on the individual.

Yes, that's what the law or legal system, which developed out of older moral and legal systems, including "religious ones" does.

It imposes 'religion' or 'morality', such as laws and punishments prohibiting rape, murder, theft, child molestation, and things like that, and for good reason.

And no, it would be the "majority", typically, the authors of religious and legal systems or a well-educated, and very arguably intellectual and morally superior men and women.

When you see that all religions are basically the same,

When you see that they're actually considerably different in many ways, you become more interested in them and learning about them in a scholarly way, in spite of simplistic and popular myths about "religion" that make rounds among the popular folk, which aren't actually true, and at worst are almost sort of a conspiracy theory.

you then get to be free from them as you see that they are being used to control the masses.

No you aren't - your not legally free to rape, murder, steal, molest children, or commit other sins, crimes, immoralities, and things of that nature.

If you tried to do so, the state would attempt to arrest, try you, possibly execute you.

So no, you're not free from the bare minimum of "religion" and conformity to rule imposed on your by the law, assuming you aren't moral, self-disciplined, or self-"religious" enough to not do these things on your own accord, when the law understands that sadly, many would do in an anarchy.

If God gives us free will, why do religions take it away?

If your body gives you the ability to rape, murder, torture children - why do you "take" that option away from yourself, or at worst, require the force of law and the "religious" morals which influenced it to "force" you not to do these things?[/QUOTE]

 

[Questioner]

[
Money that would have been better spent helping the poor, on education, healthcare

Money spent on frivolities such as the moon landing, the Human Genome Project, the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, the development of the Internet, radio, television, and other 1st world luxuries that would have been better spent feeding starving children in Ethopia and Haiti.

Christians take money from struggling families and use to build monstrosities

Americans take money from struggling families and use it to build monstrous universities, construct silly scientific theories, take voyage to the moon just because it's "fun", even though the average person can't and won't name a single, tangible way in which we benefitted from the Moon Landing to begin with, other than perhaps as a result of a petty arms race with the Soviet Union.

Jesus would not have tolerated it

Jesus would have abolished all of the sciences, universities, schools, and modern technologies, and had us all revert to living in simple, hunter-gatherer communities using only the bare minimum technologies needed to physically survive, which most of human history existed as for 80,000 years prior to what's known as civilization in its "modern" incarnations.

 

[james bond]

Atheists make the best parents

They don’t believe in fairy tales

Wrong on BOTH counts. rightwinger and atheists are usually wrong.

Causes of atheism - Conservapedia

44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults – The Truth

 

[rightwinger]

[
Money that would have been better spent helping the poor, on education, healthcare

Money spent on frivolities such as the moon landing, the Human Genome Project, the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, the development of the Internet, radio, television, and other 1st world luxuries that would have been better spent feeding starving children in Ethopia and Haiti.

Christians take money from struggling families and use to build monstrosities

Americans take money from struggling families and use it to build monstrous universities, construct silly scientific theories, take voyage to the moon just because it's "fun", even though the average person can't and won't name a single, tangible way in which we benefitted from the Moon Landing to begin with, other than perhaps as a result of a petty arms race with the Soviet Union.

Jesus would not have tolerated it

Jesus would have abolished all of the sciences, universities, schools, and modern technologies, and had us all revert to living in simple, hunter-gatherer communities using only the bare minimum technologies needed to physically survive, which most of human history existed as for 80,000 years prior to what's known as civilization in its "modern" incarnations.

Let’s see ..

Mapping the human genome, the internet and TV vs worshipping imaginary magical beings?

I’ll take the former

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists make the best parents

They don’t believe in fairy tales

Wrong on BOTH counts. rightwinger and atheists are usually wrong.

Causes of atheism - Conservapedia

44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults – The Truth

Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory

 

[MaryL]

Liberals ready kill their children, instead of infanticide, they call it..abortion.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals ready kill their children, instead of infanticide, they call it..abortion.

Conservatives let them starve once they are born

 

[MaryL]

Liberals ready kill their children, instead of infanticide, they call it..abortion.

Conservatives let them starve once they are born

I would agree with you but then...

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[ding]

Liberals ready kill their children, instead of infanticide, they call it..abortion.

Conservatives let them starve once they are born

So you are supporting a mercy killing? Really?

 

[MaryL]

Liberals ready kill their children, instead of infanticide, they call it..abortion.

Conservatives let them starve once they are born

So you are supporting a mercy killing? Really?

You missed the point.

 

[Care4all]

Christian parents are likely the parents of those that are Atheists now when older, so why not allow Atheists to have children, they could likely become parents of children who then later, become Christians....

 

[daveman]

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.

How many Christians agree with him, Ed?

Note: This question requires intellectual honesty. You may not be qualified to answer.

 

[james bond]

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.

 

[bluzman61]

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?

To answer your question at the top of your thread - Why not? Then they'll get to be as miserable as their parents. (Only half-sarcastic.)

 

[Kilroy2]

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?

other side of the coin

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

are they all atheist

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

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

 

[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.

How many Christians agree with him, Ed?

Note: This question requires intellectual honesty. You may not be qualified to answer.

Too many!

 

[Questioner]

[
Money that would have been better spent helping the poor, on education, healthcare

Money spent on frivolities such as the moon landing, the Human Genome Project, the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, the development of the Internet, radio, television, and other 1st world luxuries that would have been better spent feeding starving children in Ethopia and Haiti.

Christians take money from struggling families and use to build monstrosities

Americans take money from struggling families and use it to build monstrous universities, construct silly scientific theories, take voyage to the moon just because it's "fun", even though the average person can't and won't name a single, tangible way in which we benefitted from the Moon Landing to begin with, other than perhaps as a result of a petty arms race with the Soviet Union.

Jesus would not have tolerated it

Jesus would have abolished all of the sciences, universities, schools, and modern technologies, and had us all revert to living in simple, hunter-gatherer communities using only the bare minimum technologies needed to physically survive, which most of human history existed as for 80,000 years prior to what's known as civilization in its "modern" incarnations.

Let’s see ..

Mapping the human genome, the internet and TV vs worshipping imaginary magical beings?

I’ll take the former

Again you've shown you aren't all that bright, it was illustrated to you that you failed to define the term "magic", or don't even know the difference between a simple archetypical image of a "god" or whatnot, a symbolism akin to one of Jung's archetypes, and God, as in the abstract concept, having no physical form, only able to be represented with a simplistic image, icon, idol, or so forth.

 

[NoNukes]

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?

Idiotic thread.

 

[Questioner]

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.