Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86

Thread: Should the state remove children from atheist homes?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 9 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Should the state remove children from atheist homes?

    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.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to MarcusA For This Post:

    Evmetro (07-09-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    21,584
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 10,149 Times in 6,505 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,790 Times in 1,662 Posts

    Default

    No

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    29,971
    Thanks
    11,734
    Thanked 10,285 Times in 6,924 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 770 Times in 718 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I think we should license and regulate parentage, like we do other rights.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    42,263
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    No
    aren't you a proponent of removing children from anti vaxxers homes?
    The war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror, and now the war on opiods.............there's a reason they call it a war. So you idiots will easily accept the collateral damage of innocents

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    17,149
    Thanks
    1,752
    Thanked 7,853 Times in 5,219 Posts
    Groans
    330
    Groaned 2,239 Times in 2,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    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.
    you are just a troll

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to katzgar For This Post:

    Crocodile (07-09-2020), guno (07-09-2020), ThatOwlWoman (07-09-2020)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    9,078
    Thanks
    14,874
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,465 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 1,455 Times in 1,353 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    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.
    You belong in the funny farm, with the rest of the nutjobs.

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    10,585
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 2,021 Times in 1,675 Posts
    Groans
    235
    Groaned 546 Times in 524 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    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.
    What is the purpose of your trolling?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Crocodile (07-09-2020)

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    19,862
    Thanks
    537
    Thanked 3,570 Times in 2,853 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,366 Times in 1,251 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    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.

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    32,847
    Thanks
    56,585
    Thanked 23,669 Times in 14,931 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,648 Times in 2,460 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    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.
    ^ ^ Hahahahahahahahaha!

    KAG: Keep America Grieving

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    guno (07-09-2020)

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,542
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 727 Times in 510 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 273 Times in 244 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katzgar View Post
    you are just a troll
    Agree. Another troll.

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 9 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    aren't you a proponent of removing children from anti vaxxers homes?
    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

    https://www.youtube.com

    "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").

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    90,985
    Thanks
    5,594
    Thanked 25,608 Times in 20,441 Posts
    Groans
    2,150
    Groaned 2,178 Times in 2,074 Posts

    Default

    why did we let atheists kidnap all those children in the first place?......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    MarcusA (07-09-2020)

  18. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,537
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 1,015 Times in 721 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 314 Times in 288 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    why did we let atheists kidnap all those children in the first place?......
    Are you referring to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller? LOL!

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,062
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 513 Times in 374 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 30 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    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.

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,542
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 727 Times in 510 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 273 Times in 244 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    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.
    theism is not rational.

Similar Threads

  1. Silencing Free Speech = Attempting To Remove The Right To Remove Rubbish Forced Into
    By David Jeffrey Spetch in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2019, 12:10 PM
  2. when the state kidnaps your children
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-29-2014, 12:17 PM
  3. Nanny state to crack down on porn. Think of the children!!
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 08:37 PM
  4. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 02:15 PM
  5. should state aid be given to parents of their rich children?
    By Robdawg in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 12:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •