Should the state remove children from atheist homes?

M

MarcusA

Verified User
I'm tempted to argue that, yes, it would be in the vested interest of the state to ban atheists from procreating, as well as to confiscate the children from atheist homes, and redistribute them to homes, such as Christian homes, grounded in some measure of morality or virtue.

An atheist, by mere virtue of it's own inferiority cannot be trusted around children, let alone allowed to have children of its own; for example, to an atheist, rape, murder, child molestations are not evils or moral ills, they are just alternate 'lifestyle preferences', or perhaps even a good thing.

So why on earth would we allow those to have children who can't even morally object to raping and harming children without stealing and appropriating Christian and "religious" morality?

---

So sorry atheists, ultimately your children are not yours anyway, they are first and foremost the children of God Almighty. And it is therefore the natural right and duty of a God-fearing state to remove them from you, and educate them in virtue, Christianity, and morality, as opposed to degeneracy, atheism, and vice and those ills which can lead a soul in the direction of hellfire. To allow an atheist, pagan, heathen, or other Godless ilk in the company of children is a rather heinous sin which should not be allowed unchecked.
 
MarcusA said:
I'm tempted to argue that, yes, it would be in the vested interest of the state to ban atheists from procreating, as well as to confiscate the children from atheist homes, and redistribute them to homes, such as Christian homes, grounded in some measure of morality or virtue.

An atheist, by mere virtue of it's own inferiority cannot be trusted around children, let alone allowed to have children of its own; for example, to an atheist, rape, murder, child molestations are not evils or moral ills, they are just alternate 'lifestyle preferences', or perhaps even a good thing.

So why on earth would we allow those to have children who can't even morally object to raping and harming children without stealing and appropriating Christian and "religious" morality?

---

So sorry atheists, ultimately your children are not yours anyway, they are first and foremost the children of God Almighty. And it is therefore the natural right and duty of a God-fearing state to remove them from you, and educate them in virtue, Christianity, and morality, as opposed to degeneracy, atheism, and vice and those ills which can lead a soul in the direction of hellfire. To allow an atheist, pagan, heathen, or other Godless ilk in the company of children is a rather heinous sin which should not be allowed unchecked.
Click to expand...

you are just a troll
 
MarcusA said:
I'm tempted to argue that, yes, it would be in the vested interest of the state to ban atheists from procreating, as well as to confiscate the children from atheist homes, and redistribute them to homes, such as Christian homes, grounded in some measure of morality or virtue.

An atheist, by mere virtue of it's own inferiority cannot be trusted around children, let alone allowed to have children of its own; for example, to an atheist, rape, murder, child molestations are not evils or moral ills, they are just alternate 'lifestyle preferences', or perhaps even a good thing.

So why on earth would we allow those to have children who can't even morally object to raping and harming children without stealing and appropriating Christian and "religious" morality?

---

So sorry atheists, ultimately your children are not yours anyway, they are first and foremost the children of God Almighty. And it is therefore the natural right and duty of a God-fearing state to remove them from you, and educate them in virtue, Christianity, and morality, as opposed to degeneracy, atheism, and vice and those ills which can lead a soul in the direction of hellfire. To allow an atheist, pagan, heathen, or other Godless ilk in the company of children is a rather heinous sin which should not be allowed unchecked.
Click to expand...

You belong in the funny farm, with the rest of the nutjobs.
 
MarcusA said:
I'm tempted to argue that, yes, it would be in the vested interest of the state to ban atheists from procreating, as well as to confiscate the children from atheist homes, and redistribute them to homes, such as Christian homes, grounded in some measure of morality or virtue.

An atheist, by mere virtue of it's own inferiority cannot be trusted around children, let alone allowed to have children of its own; for example, to an atheist, rape, murder, child molestations are not evils or moral ills, they are just alternate 'lifestyle preferences', or perhaps even a good thing.

So why on earth would we allow those to have children who can't even morally object to raping and harming children without stealing and appropriating Christian and "religious" morality?

---

So sorry atheists, ultimately your children are not yours anyway, they are first and foremost the children of God Almighty. And it is therefore the natural right and duty of a God-fearing state to remove them from you, and educate them in virtue, Christianity, and morality, as opposed to degeneracy, atheism, and vice and those ills which can lead a soul in the direction of hellfire. To allow an atheist, pagan, heathen, or other Godless ilk in the company of children is a rather heinous sin which should not be allowed unchecked.
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of your trolling?
 
MarcusA said:
I'm tempted to argue that, yes, it would be in the vested interest of the state to ban atheists from procreating, as well as to confiscate the children from atheist homes, and redistribute them to homes, such as Christian homes, grounded in some measure of morality or virtue.

An atheist, by mere virtue of it's own inferiority cannot be trusted around children, let alone allowed to have children of its own; for example, to an atheist, rape, murder, child molestations are not evils or moral ills, they are just alternate 'lifestyle preferences', or perhaps even a good thing.

So why on earth would we allow those to have children who can't even morally object to raping and harming children without stealing and appropriating Christian and "religious" morality?

---

So sorry atheists, ultimately your children are not yours anyway, they are first and foremost the children of God Almighty. And it is therefore the natural right and duty of a God-fearing state to remove them from you, and educate them in virtue, Christianity, and morality, as opposed to degeneracy, atheism, and vice and those ills which can lead a soul in the direction of hellfire. To allow an atheist, pagan, heathen, or other Godless ilk in the company of children is a rather heinous sin which should not be allowed unchecked.
Click to expand...

:tardthoughts:
 
MarcusA said:
I'm tempted to argue that, yes, it would be in the vested interest of the state to ban atheists from procreating, as well as to confiscate the children from atheist homes, and redistribute them to homes, such as Christian homes, grounded in some measure of morality or virtue.

An atheist, by mere virtue of it's own inferiority cannot be trusted around children, let alone allowed to have children of its own; for example, to an atheist, rape, murder, child molestations are not evils or moral ills, they are just alternate 'lifestyle preferences', or perhaps even a good thing.

So why on earth would we allow those to have children who can't even morally object to raping and harming children without stealing and appropriating Christian and "religious" morality?

---

So sorry atheists, ultimately your children are not yours anyway, they are first and foremost the children of God Almighty. And it is therefore the natural right and duty of a God-fearing state to remove them from you, and educate them in virtue, Christianity, and morality, as opposed to degeneracy, atheism, and vice and those ills which can lead a soul in the direction of hellfire. To allow an atheist, pagan, heathen, or other Godless ilk in the company of children is a rather heinous sin which should not be allowed unchecked.
Click to expand...

^ ^ Hahahahahahahahaha!

7C7aR1v.jpg
 
SmarterthanYou said:
aren't you a proponent of removing children from anti vaxxers homes?
Click to expand...

Hell no, if anything, vaccine propagandists should be thrown in jail for misleading the public with their corporate propaganda and salesmanship.

There have been plenty of vaccine manufacturer lawsuits due to potentially harmful product defects:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/recalls.html

[video]https://www.youtube.com[/video]

"Anti-vaxxer" is just a stupid person term for "anything they don't like" and should be publicly ridiculed (along with the idiots who don't even know the difference between "medicine" and/or the "medical" industries, and the "natural sciences").
 
In the most concise manner, there are four positions you can have on religion. You can be a"

Theist. You believe there is something greater than yourself in the universe-- a God or Gods, or something equivalent to that. You have no absolute proof but point to evidence that you see makes it believable.

Agnostic. You're not sure whether there is a god, gods, or not. You're on the fence and need more convincing.

Secular: You're position on religion is Don't know, don't care. For you the existence or nonexistence of some higher deity or being is irrelevant.

Then there's Atheist: This is the reverse of theist. You believe there is nothing greater than you in the universe. God (little g) doesn't exist. You know that with equal religious fervor to the position of a theist and offer evidence you are correct.

The problem with Atheism is the same one with much of pop science. It's like Gorebal Warming believers argue, "The science is settled!" That, I'm right, you can STFU, and that ends it. It's the identical argument many theists use God said it, I believe it, end of argument. It doesn't leave room to be wrong or accept that there might be alternatives. For the Atheist there can't be anything more to the universe than what is observable. This makes Atheism the position of denial and kind of crazy. It argues that billions upon billions of humans over countless societies and millennia all got theism wrong. But, since you can't prove a negative, being unable to accept there could be something greater than yourself leaves you painted into a corner.
The other three positions are rational. Atheism is irrational.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the most concise manner, there are four positions you can have on religion. You can be a"

Theist. You believe there is something greater than yourself in the universe-- a God or Gods, or something equivalent to that. You have no absolute proof but point to evidence that you see makes it believable.

Agnostic. You're not sure whether there is a god, gods, or not. You're on the fence and need more convincing.

Secular: You're position on religion is Don't know, don't care. For you the existence or nonexistence of some higher deity or being is irrelevant.

Then there's Atheist: This is the reverse of theist. You believe there is nothing greater than you in the universe. God (little g) doesn't exist. You know that with equal religious fervor to the position of a theist and offer evidence you are correct.

The problem with Atheism is the same one with much of science. It doesn't leave room to be wrong or accept that there might be alternatives. For the Atheist there can't be anything more to the universe than what is observable. This makes Atheism the position of denial and kind of crazy. It argues that billions upon billions of humans over countless societies and millennia all got theism wrong. But, since you can't prove a negative, being unable to accept there could be something greater than yourself leaves you painted into a corner.
The other three positions are rational. Atheism is irrational.
Click to expand...

theism is not rational.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the most concise manner, there are four positions you can have on religion. You can be a"

Theist. You believe there is something greater than yourself in the universe-- a God or Gods, or something equivalent to that. You have no absolute proof but point to evidence that you see makes it believable.

Agnostic. You're not sure whether there is a god, gods, or not. You're on the fence and need more convincing.

Secular: You're position on religion is Don't know, don't care. For you the existence or nonexistence of some higher deity or being is irrelevant.

Then there's Atheist: This is the reverse of theist. You believe there is nothing greater than you in the universe. God (little g) doesn't exist. You know that with equal religious fervor to the position of a theist and offer evidence you are correct.

The problem with Atheism is the same one with much of science. It doesn't leave room to be wrong or accept that there might be alternatives. For the Atheist there can't be anything more to the universe than what is observable. This makes Atheism the position of denial and kind of crazy. It argues that billions upon billions of humans over countless societies and millennia all got theism wrong. But, since you can't prove a negative, being unable to accept there could be something greater than yourself leaves you painted into a corner.
The other three positions are rational. Atheism is irrational.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it is not the definition. Atheism just means lack of believe in gods.
 
AProudLefty said:
The problem with that is that it is not the definition. Atheism just means lack of believe in gods.
Click to expand...
Atheists cannot believe that molesting kids is morally wrong, except on "faith" stolen and appropriated from world religions.

Plenty of perverse and evil atheists have advocated child molestation as a good thing, in fact.

So why should people who cannot rationally and consistently believe that raping theirs or others children is wrong be allowed to have any to begin with?
 
MarcusA said:
Atheists cannot believe that molesting kids is morally wrong, except on "faith" stolen and appropriated from world religions.

Plenty of perverse and evil atheists have advocated child molestation as a good thing, in fact.
Click to expand...

Morality came from evolution, survival and civilizations.
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
theism is not rational.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Theism in essence says I think there is something greater than me in the universe. I don't know precisely what it is but I sense it is there. I therefore believe that there is something greater.
That is how much of science got us where we are. That's how much of society has grown.

On the other hand, Atheism starts from the premise I'm it. There's nothing more to the universe than what I observe. That is a closed-minded position. It's the argument made through the centuries that the center of the universe is the Earth. It's the flat Earth hypothesis. It's arguing that Gorebal Warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and there can be no other cause.

Atheism is irrational because it starts with a closed premise with no room to consider alternatives.
 
AProudLefty said:
The problem with that is that it is not the definition. Atheism just means lack of believe in gods.
Click to expand...

Correct, making it the religious equivalent of Theism. I religiously believe there is no god! Atheists can no more prove there is no god than Theists can prove there is a God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top