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
    267
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 22 Times in 17 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
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    No

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 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
    61,490
    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?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    27,356
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 10,626 Times in 7,127 Posts
    Groans
    331
    Groaned 2,985 Times in 2,707 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:

    Charoite (07-09-2020), Guno צְבִי (07-09-2020), ThatOwlWoman (07-09-2020)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    28,403
    Thanks
    26,104
    Thanked 11,856 Times in 8,415 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 2,290 Times in 2,172 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
    86,919
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 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.
    What is the purpose of your trolling?

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

    Charoite (07-09-2020)

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 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
    88,298
    Thanks
    145,713
    Thanked 82,520 Times in 52,738 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 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.
    ^ ^ Hahahahahahahahaha!

    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain

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

    Guno צְבִי (07-09-2020)

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 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
    267
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 22 Times in 17 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
    134,847
    Thanks
    13,246
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    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
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,176 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 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
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,038
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,926 Times in 13,193 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 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
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 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, 01:10 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, 09:37 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, 01:05 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
  •