Father Loses Custody of His Children for Being Agnostic

November 22, 2010 on Fox59 News - via http://www.AtheistMedia.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• agnostic
• father
• loses
• custody
• children
• craig
• scarberry
• judge
• george
• pancol
• court
• ruling
• church
• state
• constitution
• rights
• news
• atheist
• atheism

[NicolSD]

I wonder how this story ended. I hope the father got equal custody again.

[ChainsThatBind]

Poor guy, the judge needs to be punched aside the head. This is what's wrong with america these days.

[baahhhFATALITY11]

THIS IS BULLSHIT.

[ThePaulWog]

@lorelainoah stupid whore... learn some manners

[quanmaz]

@yousuckatparenting Maybe he's tired of all the trouble he went through.

[trenchyninja]

WHAT? WHAT BLACK MAGIC IS THIS? FOX NEWS, DOING NEWS?

[yousuckatparenting]

The father was kind enough to add me to his facebook (for a while). He was very happy, crazy in love with his new girlfriend and had fair access to his kids. But when I asked if he had any for tips or advice or connections for me as i fight for fathers rights (in HIS home town), he wouldnt even be bothered to respond. I sent 3 short notes over a few months just to reach out and he couldnt even say good luck to me. Even after all those people that came to his side to help and encourage him.

[TryTheRedPill]

Someone flippin pinch me!!

Am I dreaming? Did a judge, a man who supposedly represents the apex of intellect, good judgment, and critical thinking, really rule this way? That is some sad and scary shit let me tell you! This judge has absolutely no business sitting on a bench ANYWHERE!

[TheIcelandicPatriot]

Im so outraged i don't know what to say.

[Psykotto]

@belladonna5012

Then fine, I'm an agnostic-atheist, I really don't give a shit what you call it. I don't believe in a god, but as long as the existence of a god cannot be proven scientifically one way or the other 100%, I accept that it's a possibility that there is, or was, some sort of god or gods at some point, even though it's about as likely as the possibility that I am a cyborg, it's still possible in the loosest definition of the word.

[belladonna5012]

@Psykotto Insisting that atheism requires *affirmative belief* is generally an attempt by theists to portray the rejection of theistic claims as "faith-based," so that those who make theistic claims can attack atheism as being just another religion (i.e., "You're as bad as we are!") while hiding from the real problem, which is that theistic claims lack supporting evidence that holds up under scrutiny.

[belladonna5012]

@Psykotto The problem is, "agnosticism" doesn't refer at all to belief. Calling oneself an agnostic is an incomplete statement. The state of lacking belief in gods, whether an affirmation of "there are no gods" or simply "gods are not on the list of things in which I affirmatively believe exist," is called atheism. Most people who call themselves agnostics or atheists are actually agnostic atheists (which is the proper term).