Can Atheists Be Parents?

[nhboy]

The last straw was the common man and his affinity for his state. Where She went, he went. .

You don't mean...."my country, right or wrong"?

BTW, who were the principal new money men you spoke of, after all practically everyone had slaves in one form or another (mustn't forget sharecroppers both black and white), some as few as one or two?

 

[Larry Gude]

Nope...

You don't mean...."my country, right or wrong"?

BTW, who were the principal new money men you spoke of, after all practically everyone had slaves in one form or another (mustn't forget sharecroppers both black and white), some as few as one or two?

...the vast majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves and the vast majority of slave owners owned only a handful.

William Yancey is noted as the A #1 new money agitator. The fire eaters.

Read the book.

 

[Thor]

Just to play devil's advocate:

How effective can a parent be, if he believes in nothing?

Don't frigging start. The religious do not have a corner on the ethics market. And the man does believe in something I am sure, he probably believes empirical evidence and free thinking trumps indoctrination and mindless dogma.

The sanctimonious nature of the religious folks in this country is getting completely out of hand.

 

[nhboy]

...the vast majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves and the vast majority of slave owners owned only a handful.

William Yancey is noted as the A #1 new money agitator. The fire eaters.

Read the book.

Yes, I will read the book as you suggest. Not to be argumentative, as I enjoy your inputs on this forum, and if you haven't already seen it you may be interested in this website on slaveholders in 1860.

Slaveholders and African Americans 1860-1870

 

[Larry Gude]

What's...

Yes, I will read the book as you suggest. Not to be argumentative, as I enjoy your inputs on this forum, and if you haven't already seen it you may be interested in this website on slaveholders in 1860.

Slaveholders and African Americans 1860-1870

...the short version of what the link is saying?

 

[Kyle]

The concept of sovereign states is lost and forgotten. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

 

[Larry Gude]

See...

The concept of sovereign states is lost and forgotten. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

...that's a whole other angle. Many argue Lincoln was the bad guy in the downfall of states rights.

My argument is the sucessionists are solely responsible.

When they bailed out, almost every single man in this nation at the time, North and South, did not want black equality, even almost all of the abolitionists. They thought slavery wrong but they were not advocating equality.

Lincoln himself did not advocate, at all, any federal intervention in slavery where it existed. He and many others simply said it can not expand.

It is interesting to wonder what would have happened if the South either left in peace or didn't leave at all. Before long, slavery would have died a natural death, as many had already predicted, due to the industrial age. It would have become impossibly expensive to keep slaves in light of mechanization.

Then what?

The slave owners, in their desire to save slavery, killed it faster and quicker than any abolitionist ever dared dream of.

Fascinating.

 

[nhboy]

...the short version of what the link is saying?

A whole lot of folks had a whole lot of slaves.

 

[nhboy]

...that's a whole other angle. Many argue Lincoln was the bad guy in the downfall of states rights.

My argument is the sucessionists are solely responsible.

When they bailed out, almost every single man in this nation at the time, North and South, did not want black equality, even almost all of the abolitionists. They thought slavery wrong but they were not advocating equality.

Lincoln himself did not advocate, at all, any federal intervention in slavery where it existed. He and many others simply said it can not expand.

It is interesting to wonder what would have happened if the South either left in peace or didn't leave at all. Before long, slavery would have died a natural death, as many had already predicted, due to the industrial age. It would have become impossibly expensive to keep slaves in light of mechanization.

Then what?

The slave owners, in their desire to save slavery, killed it faster and quicker than any abolitionist ever dared dream of.

Fascinating.

Absolutely fascinating! I'm making a list of the books available on the individual Fire Eaters. It seems they are described as arrogant, angry men prone to duels and such. Appears like the pols of that era really had a set!

 

[Larry Gude]

I dunno...

A whole lot of folks had a whole lot of slaves.

The last U.S.census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and would have been counted in each County. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S.

1 in 70 owning slaves? People owning 200 or more made up less than 1% of slave holders yet held 30% of the slaves?

I think we're talking the mega rich owning, by and large, most of the slaves, yes? And we are for sure talking about being a slave owner, 1 out of 70, being a distinct minority, yes?

Further, if you take out 30% of 4 million owned by less than 1% of 393,975 owners, then 2,800,000 were owned by about 390,000 or 7 each on average with 3,000 owning that 200 each or more.

Small business v. corporations so to speak.

 

[Kyle]

Small business v. corporations so to speak.

Now you had to go and bring math into it!... You're trying to make his head explode, aren't you?

 

[Larry Gude]

Nah...

Now you had to go and bring math into it!... You're trying to make his head explode, aren't you?

...like I said, it's a fascinating point in American history that, I think, has an awful lot of relevance to the rest of American history from then to today and beyond.

It provides the truly American prism to view things through.

 

[godsbutterfly]

Back to the subject of "Atheists as Parents" - this couple was allowed to adopt a son despite their lack of religious beliefs. They had the little girl with them for nearly a year and a half and now the Court is raising their eyebrows and saying "Well, we just don't know about this - they don't have any religion going on in that household." like it's some big surprise they just found out about. To take this girl from the only home she has known for nearly 18 months because her parents are not taking her to church or providing her or her brother with religious instruction is wrong. Hopefully as the children get older the option to choose to learn about religion will be left open to them and they can make their own decisions. Tearing this family apart is not the answer.

 

[nhboy]

...like I said, it's a fascinating point in American history that, I think, has an awful lot of relevance to the rest of American history from then to today and beyond.

It provides the truly American prism to view things through.

Found a site with maps to go with the math.

What is a Map? -- Mapping Slavery in America

 

[This_person]

I'd say yes. More so than the priests who are molesting children.

People who like to point out the transgressions of others seem conveniently forget about their own.

Just thought this was a funny sequence of posts. No offense.

 

[This_person]

We are talking about the fact the atheists can have morals and ethics, like so called good christians do, without some religion telling them what to believe is the one truth.

If they're "so called good Christians", wouldn't they also be "so called morals and ethics" for atheists?

I'm not fighting against atheists being parents. That's just stupid (to think they can't is stupid).

 

[This_person]

...and then, if there is a god, according to your logic, he/she/it must have come from somewhere/something, yes? Thus, god can not be god. And then, where did the thing/place god came from...come from? So, not even gods parents can be god. On and on and on.

So, God 'just is' makes it nice and tidy. Man is not meant to understand God, only obey, makes it even better. And yet, this magnificent omnipotent is not able to just sit down with me for five minutes, all of us, and say "I am going to send you to hell for all eternity if you don't join the correct religion and shape up."

Maybe he's afraid I'll start the whole thing all over again and ask where hell comes from?

But of course, God speaks to us all the time, I merely choose to not hear. So, off to hell I go. God gives us free will to ruin ourselves but he, like a parent who can't be bothered to spend time with their child says "Look, go read about it in a book or something. I'm busy."

Lilke a parent, have you ever spanked (or in some way punished) your kids? Do you believe you could have explained to your three year old why he/she shouldn't put a fork in an outlet, to a detail of understanding you seek regarding life, the universe, and everything (was it 47?)?

Maybe we are, comparitively speaking, the three year old. Maybe "hell" is a "time-out".

 

[This_person]

"All questions were once spiritual. Since the beginning of time, spirituality and religion have been called on to fill in the gaps that science did not understand. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquakes and tidal waves were the wrath of Poseidon. Science has now proven those gods to be false idols. Soon all gods will be proven to be false idols. Science has now provided answers to almost every question man can ask. There are only a few questions left and they are the esoteric ones. Where do we come from? What are we doing here? What is the meaning of life and the universe?"

Those are esoteric questions?

So, how exactly did muck come alive?

 

[This_person]

It's turtles all the way down.

I thought it was all ball bearings these days?

 

[This_person]

Don't frigging start. The religious do not have a corner on the ethics market. And the man does believe in something I am sure, he probably believes empirical evidence and free thinking trumps indoctrination and mindless dogma.

The sanctimonious nature of the religious folks in this country is getting completely out of hand.

And, refering to religious belief as indoctrination, mindless dogma, fairy tales (not you, previous post), etc is not sanctimonious?

How about we each respect each other's beliefs? It's okay with me if you believe you have no soul, and your life is no more valuable than a mosquitos. That's your choice. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a parent!