Should athiests be allowed to adopt children?

[Catholig]

Good, good. I’d like to applaud the general public’s disagreement with Catholig.

I’m happy his rampant (and unabashed) bigotry is not shared among catholics as a whole.

What is frightening, though, at least in terms of improving things, is that I don’t think Catholig really minds being called a bigot, but correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t think I’m a bigot (i.e. “utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”). I simply think that it is not the governments place to force an employer to employ anyone.

The thing that really did trouble me earlier in the thread was the notion that atheists are immoral.

How can they be moral if they don’t believe in absolute moral truth? They might have their own opinions or whatever - maybe even deeply ground ideas of how to treat one another, but simply if you don’t believe that something is absolutely wrong then it doesn’t matter.

There is no other way to put it; you are wrong.

The statistics show the exact opposite; Christians go to jail in perfectly proportionate numbers, while atheists are under represented.

Lots of people profess themselves to be Christians (and Catholics) while sadly not living that kind of a life. There are gang members who, while “deeply respecting” Our Lady of Guadalupe, would go out and kill someone, and thereby offend both her and her divine son.

The truth is, much research into crime in general has shown that education is the greatest antithesis to crime.

Source.

We all have the same kind of conscience (unless you have a mental illness, which actually a very large number of criminals do) and so we are all pretty moral.

You try to live by your opinion of what is right and wrong while disacknowledging an absolute moral truth. You accept moral pluralism.

Declaring that atheists are less moral than Christians in general is not only erroneous, but evil and bigoted.

Then most Christians and Catholics are bigotted.

Seriously, grow up. Your mentality is not the only one in the world. Your culture, your religion, are not the only ones, and they are not the center of the world either.

There is only one holy catholic and apostolic church. And only one God.

Again, grow up. Time to become an adult with the all important capability of openly trying to understand where all the rest of the world is coming from.

The point is to get to heaven and to get everyone else there. So while you worry about multi-culturalism I’ll worry about the truth.

This is opposed to, of course, acting like a child and simply rejecting and denying and condemning and ridiculing everyone who disagrees with you.

Okay, the entire Church is childish, and the Pope as well

And, naturally, like a child, you base all these things on nothing.

Anyone have any stats showing how atheists abuse children more? Anyone?

I hope they don’t, and honestly I don’t want to find those stats because it would be sad if true.

So then, all of you who said that atheists are immoral and would abuse children more, decided to use the strategy of…Lying!

I didn’t see any stats concerning that, nor did I provide them, nor do I support them. But I don’t think that atheism is true, and I don’t think that you can be trully moral unless there is some definitive morals to follow.

That is not christian behavior, in fact there is a commandment against it.

Anyway, your religion believes in a God who, according to the bible, once ordered his followers to be happy to dash children to death against the rocks.

I think context is need - like a few verses. Maybe some background information.

Such a brutal atrocity is totally unacceptable by modern standards (just like how black racism is unacceptable, and how gay bigotry will be unacceptable; such is the way of the shifting moral paradigm). I don’t think children should be raised on such brutal, violent stories.

One cannot control one’s race, but one can control one’s behavior.

But I’m nowhere near a big enough jerk to stop any freaking fellow human beings from adopting children if they are not abusive.

In a morally relative society no religion is better than another - so I don’t see why you’d want to stop anyone from adopting, except maybe if you were an anti-theist.

Stop making unfounded, bigotrous claims about people who are different from you, and grow up already.

Whatever.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t think I’m a bigot (i.e. “utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”). I simply think that it is not the governments place to force an employer to employ anyone.

And you think that people of a certain demographic shouldn’t have the opportunity to work for you.

How can they be moral if they don’t believe in absolute moral truth? They might have their own opinions or whatever - maybe even deeply ground ideas of how to treat one another, but simply if you don’t believe that something is absolutely wrong then it doesn’t matter.

Absolute morality does not require God. I hear this far more often than I should. Don’t you guys read Kant and Hobbes anymore? Or, for that matter, the bible? Jesus’ second commandment is quite absolute and does not involve God.

You try to live by your opinion of what is right and wrong while disacknowledging an absolute moral truth. You accept moral pluralism.

Don’t tell us what we believe. We know it better than you. I at least am a moral absolutist, and so too, I think, are most of the other non-theists posting here; my collection of absolutes is simply a lot smaller than yours.

Then most Christians and Catholics are bigotted.

A lot of them; I hope ‘most’ is an exaggeration, but sometimes it unfortunately does not seem like it.

Okay, the entire Church is childish, and the Pope as well

Not the entire Church; most of its members have better sense and better charity than to behave like that.

I didn’t see any stats concerning that, nor did I provide them, nor do I support them. But I don’t think that atheism is true, and I don’t think that you can be trully moral unless there is some definitive morals to follow.

Good thing you aren’t the arbiter of definitive morality then! It doesn’t take a god to make people behave!

In a morally relative society no religion is better than another - so I don’t see why you’d want to stop anyone from adopting, except maybe if you were an anti-theist.

Ahem.

Catholig:

I certainly don’t think that catholic adoption organizations should be forced to adopt a child out into an Atheist/Homosexual/Whatever home

Are you anti-theist?

 

[Other_Eric]

You will get many replies from Catholics, athiests and agnostics that will say you are wrong.

I speak truth and care little if it makes me unpopular, especially among atheists, agnostics or Catholics not willing to defend innocents from spiritual poison.

 

[Mirdath]

I speak truth and care little if it makes me unpopular, especially among atheists, agnostics or Catholics not willing to defend innocents from spiritual poison.

I’m just curious, what is your whole ‘lapsed Catholic’ deal?

 

[jrnami]

With all the talk on gay adoption recently in the news, I’m curious. Why not ban athiests from adopting children? We probably couldn’t keep them from concieving children on thier own, but we could certainly prevent them from adopting children. Wouldn’t an athiest family bring as much spiritual harm to a child as a gay family? Or even more so?

You make a salient point here. I think that the birth mother should be the one to decide what the belief system of the adopting parents is. The agencies could give her a questionaire

 

[jrnami]

With all the talk on gay adoption recently in the news, I’m curious. Why not ban athiests from adopting children? We probably couldn’t keep them from concieving children on thier own, but we could certainly prevent them from adopting children. Wouldn’t an athiest family bring as much spiritual harm to a child as a gay family? Or even more so?

You make a salient point here. I think that the birth mother should be the one to decide what the belief system of the adopting parents is. The agencies could give her a questionaire and the mother can decide if gay is okay, and what the belief about God should be.

 

[Catholig]

And you think that people of a certain demographic shouldn’t have the opportunity to work for you.

I don’t think that makes me a “bigot” according tot he dictionary definition - I certainly not utterly intolerant of every creed, religion, or belief that is not my own.

Absolute morality does not require God. I hear this far more often than I should. Don’t you guys read Kant and Hobbes anymore? Or, for that matter, the bible? Jesus’ second commandment is quite absolute and does not involve God.

No, I don’t read Kant or Hobbes. I’m just curious as to how there is an absolute moral truth without a metaphysical reality - I mean in a theist world view you have a soul and you have god so you can take the view that God this truth is absolute, and that those things that oppose it both damages one’s soul and rejects God. And that there are consequences (i.e. hell) for disregarding it.

What is the moral absolutes in atheism? Damaging to the mind or sentimentalities? And in a world without god and punishment - without a metaphysical reality, who is to say that doing those this which the mind naturally opposes is “bad”? That going against nature is “bad”? In the end everyone can do whatever he wants without consequences.

If not show me how I’m wrong.

Don’t tell us what we believe. We know it better than you. I at least am a moral absolutist, and so too, I think, are most of the other non-theists posting here; my collection of absolutes is simply a lot smaller than yours.

Okay, then please show me how killing is wrong in an atheistic world view (I assume that is one of your absolutes).

A lot of them; I hope ‘most’ is an exaggeration, but sometimes it unfortunately does not seem like it.

The point I was trying to make was that one man is accusing an entire group of people of being bigotted. I think that shows who the real bigot is.

Not the entire Church; most of its members have better sense and better charity than to behave like that.

Than to behave how - to declare that there is only one true Church, or one true God? Because I think that is what the Church is meant to do.

Good thing you aren’t the arbiter of definitive morality then! It doesn’t take a god to make people behave!

I think it does in a way - but if you want to show me how I’m wrong I’d be glad to listen, question, and debate.

Are you anti-theist?

No just Catholic.

Catholig

 

[Mirdath]

No, I don’t read Kant or Hobbes. I’m just curious as to how there is an absolute moral truth without a metaphysical reality - I mean in a theist world view you have a soul and you have god so you can take the view that God this truth is absolute, and that those things that oppose it both damages one’s soul and rejects God. And that there are consequences (i.e. hell) for disregarding it.

What is the moral absolutes in atheism? Damaging to the mind or sentimentalities? And in a world without god and punishment - without a metaphysical reality, who is to say that doing those this which the mind naturally opposes is “bad”? That going against nature is “bad”? In the end everyone can do whatever he wants without consequences.

Come back to this once you’ve read Kant at the very least; I suggest starting with the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

Since you are ignorant (and apparently have forgotten the Golden Rule, a non-theist moral absolute endorsed by your own messiah), you have no place accusing others of being less moral. Take the trouble to find out why we think the way we do and how we explain the foundation of absolute morality and the practice of ethics, then you can start criticizing it – if you don’t come around to it.

You probably already agree with Kant in a great many ways, although you don’t know it; and like it or not, you live in a very Hobbesian society.

Okay, then please show me how killing is wrong in an atheistic world view (I assume that is one of your absolutes).

Easy Kantian exercise: universalize the problem. I want to kill this guy. Is killing universally beneficial? No. Therefore, it is not morally right for me to kill Joe.

It can, of course, get more complex. Say I’m standing near the door at a convention center, enjoying a cigarette, and three different individuals who all might have problems opening the door come to me in turn.

First we have Martha J. MacGloople, an octogenarian in a walker. No harm, no foul there – it’s pretty obviously a universal Good Thing to hold the door for people in her situation.

Second we have John R. Angst, a younger man with his hands full and a very angry expression on his face. He might conceivably be coming in with the intent to harm someone, but I can’t prove it. He might just have had a bad day. Universally speaking, I can’t say one way or the other about the intent expressed in emotion I don’t know the backstory to. So, I open the door, and it’s more or less neutral. A moral good would be to try to cheer him up a little.

Third we have Archimedes Q. Deathtron and his twenty-foot robot Blendy. He’s storming up creakily and cackling ‘the fools! I’ll show them! I’ll show ALL of them!’ Is it morally right for me to hold the door open so he and his robot can puree everybody inside? Universalize: is it morally right to assist in the manufacture of people puree? No. So, I run like hell.

This isn’t the best example, but I hope it helps a little. Now go read Kant.

 

[Catholig]

Easy Kantian exercise: universalize the problem. I want to kill this guy. Is killing universally beneficial? No. Therefore, it is not morally right for me to kill Joe.

I’m unsure what you mean about “universally beneficial” especially taking into account some of your latter examples (such as holding the door open for the little old lady). Good for the whole of human society, or good for the entire universe? While it may sound cold I don’t see how the whole of society will think that it is beneficial to keep the door open for one old lady or care if one person murdered.

And why and how are you “morally” bound to do what is beneficial for either society or the environment? I mean 1) there are no consequences for not obeying (such as hell) and 2) there is no one to displease (such as god).

And also how is this “universally beneficial” thing absolute - I mean I’m sure other people can arrive at other conclusions following human reason.

It can, of course, get more complex. Say I’m standing near the door at a convention center, enjoying a cigarette, and three different individuals who all might have problems opening the door come to me in turn.

First we have Martha J. MacGloople, an octogenarian in a walker. No harm, no foul there – it’s pretty obviously a universal Good Thing to hold the door for people in her situation.

Second we have John R. Angst, a younger man with his hands full and a very angry expression on his face. He might conceivably be coming in with the intent to harm someone, but I can’t prove it. He might just have had a bad day. Universally speaking, I can’t say one way or the other about the intent expressed in emotion I don’t know the backstory to. So, I open the door, and it’s more or less neutral. A moral good would be to try to cheer him up a little.

Third we have Archimedes Q. Deathtron and his twenty-foot robot Blendy. He’s storming up creakily and cackling ‘the fools! I’ll show them! I’ll show ALL of them!’ Is it morally right for me to hold the door open so he and his robot can puree everybody inside? Universalize: is it morally right to assist in the manufacture of people puree? No. So, I run like hell.

This isn’t the best example, but I hope it helps a little. Now go read Kant.

I asked all my questions after the above quote.

Catholig

 

[Mirdath]

I’m unsure what you mean about “universally beneficial” especially taking into account some of your latter examples (such as holding the door open for the little old lady). Good for the whole of human society, or good for the entire universe? While it may sound cold I don’t see how the whole of society will think that it is beneficial to keep the door open for one old lady or care if one person murdered.

And why and how are you “morally” bound to do what is beneficial for either society or the environment? I mean 1) there are no consequences for not obeying (such as hell) and 2) there is no one to displease (such as god).

And also how is this “universally beneficial” thing absolute - I mean I’m sure other people can arrive at other conclusions following human reason.

Nobody, not even you, is necessarily bound by morality, no matter how absolute and no matter any consequences. You’re free to be wicked.

All you asked was how moral absolutism is possible without God. I have answered that. All I can really say to you now is, once again, ‘go read Kant’.

 

[Proletarian]

Should athiests be allowed to adopt children?

No!

 

[whatevergirl]

Is this question asked of someone interested in adopting, by the way???

 

[DAWNCUROLE]

Is this question asked of someone interested in adopting, by the way???

When adopting through the state (Louisiana, anyway) you are asked alot, ALOT of questions about beliefs in God, sexual orientation, sexual practices, education, morality, etc. I definately remember at least 20 or 30 serious questions on faith, not one word answers, BUT as a foster parent if I agreed to take a child of a different faith, I must provide them with religious training in their faith and the ability to worship in their place of worship.

 

[whatevergirl]

When adopting through the state (Louisiana, anyway) you are asked alot, ALOT of questions about beliefs in God, sexual orientation, sexual practices, education, morality, etc. I definately remember at least 20 or 30 serious questions on faith, not one word answers, BUT as a foster parent if I agreed to take a child of a different faith, I must provide them with religious training in their faith and the ability to worship in their place of worship.

interesting…I had no idea…thank you for that info.

 

[Catholig]

Nobody, not even you, is necessarily bound by morality, no matter how absolute and no matter any consequences. You’re free to be wicked.

All you asked was how moral absolutism is possible without God. I have answered that. All I can really say to you now is, once again, ‘go read Kant’.

Well I doubt that I am going to “go read Kant”, but since you’ve read him I’d expect that you could at least answer my questions concerning his theory - you have yet to do so - so if you want to try fine. If not - well then “universally beneficial” won’t have any meaning to me or (presumably) to most of the people reading this thread. And while I can be wicked - there’s both consequences and punishment for sin in the theistic world view. It appears that this isn’t exactly the same in the non-theistic world view where we are simply a by product of natural evolution, and there is no higher being to displease or any rule which we must follow.

Catholig

 

[Mirdath]

Well I doubt that I am going to “go read Kant”, but since you’ve read him I’d expect that you could at least answer my questions concerning his theory - you have yet to do so - so if you want to try fine. If not - well then “universally beneficial” won’t have any meaning to me or (presumably) to most of the people reading this thread. And while I can be wicked - there’s both consequences and punishment for sin in the theistic world view. It appears that this isn’t exactly the same in the non-theistic world view where we are simply a by product of natural evolution, and there is no higher being to displease or any rule which we must follow.

I read your bible, many works of the fathers of the Church, and ancient and modern Catholic theologians, and took the time to understand what they had to say; is reciprocation too much to ask? If you choose to remain willfully ignorant of all views and ideas other than your own, that’s your prerogative, but don’t expect anyone else to respect your uninformed and blatantly mistaken opinions.

 

[nichjake]

I think that with the number of kids that are living in foster homes and orphanages that anyone who can provide a loving home for the child and take care of them financially should be allowed to adopt. Sexual orientation or religion should not come into play at all.

By your reasoning I could easily turn it around and pose the same question except insert catholic into the spots where you put atheist…its all the same stupidity.

 

[Catholig]

I read your bible, many works of the fathers of the Church, and ancient and modern Catholic theologians, and took the time to understand what they had to say; is reciprocation too much to ask? If you choose to remain willfully ignorant of all views and ideas other than your own, that’s your prerogative, but don’t expect anyone else to respect your uninformed and blatantly mistaken opinions.

Firstly, I didn’t ask you to read my bible, the fathers of the Church, or ancient and modern catholic theologians so I don’t see what reciprocation I owe you. Secondly, I am not choosing to remain willfully ignorant - I asked you a few questions none of which you have answered. All you’ve said is that Kantian theory says that for something to be moral it has to be “universally beneficial” - a phrase which you have not clarified, and which means nothing to me.

Catholig

 

[Catholig]

I think that with the number of kids that are living in foster homes and orphanages that anyone who can provide a loving home for the child and take care of them financially should be allowed to adopt. Sexual orientation or religion should not come into play at all.

By your reasoning I could easily turn it around and pose the same question except insert catholic into the spots where you put atheist…its all the same stupidity.

I didn’t pose this question - an atheist did for the sake of argument.

Catholig

 

[nichjake]

I didn’t pose this question - an atheist did for the sake of argument.

Catholig

Ahhhh, I was kind of wondering about that by the first reply to this thread…oh well…the principle still applies, besides…it sounded like a lot of the stuff I’ve read around here.