Baptisms are rape

Since religions are mental viruses, shouldn't we sterilize and put the believers in concentration camps so that it won't spread?
They are mentally ill so incapacitation is not a legal issue.

Or at least we should truly respect freedom of belief by forbiding parents forcing their religion unto children (they are to young to consent).
There is a misconception that it's ok for parents to indoctrinate children with any crap they were previously forced to accept.
If nothing is done the circle of insanity will continue indefinitely.

This is all coming from a butthurt atheist that as a child was beaten by his parents for not wanting to go tu church. Does that amuse you?

(tips back in advance)

>Baptisms are rape
Haha nigga it's literally just water
Just use a towel hahahah
Like nigga dry yourself off haha

>it's just semen, use a towel, dry yourself

Your parents didn't beat you for not going to church
They beat you because you're a fucking pussy

And that would be a reason for you?

Despite the radicalism of this post, it does touch on two good topics:

>Destruction of an Idea
Unfortunately, due to human nature, there's no real way to eradicate an idea. It's not something inherited at birth (Though upbringing can influence it), but rather something that develops over time.

Even if you were to put to death every single religious person in the world, new religions would continue to arise. It may take different shape (IE someone decides something seemingly irrational is of paramount importance, and this idea begins to spread to others who suddenly begin believing and behaving the same way), but eventually "religion" in some form will ALWAYS crop up again. This applies to other ideas as well, such as the core tenants of liberalism, or authoritarianism, or any other idea that can conceivably be generated. It's like trying to fix homosexuality by terminating every gay person; you might reduce the openly homosexual population for a time, but the moment you stop, it'll slowly start to climb back up again.

>Formation of belief in the young
Without referring to official studies, I think we can safely say that teaching children certain ideas when they're young makes them more likely to continue to hold these ideas. So that said, what truly is a "neutral perspective" on philosophy and the nature of humanity and the world? Assuming there is no universal truth, there's nothing we can impart to our children that would be considered "correct" in the grand scheme of existence. Any attempt to impart previous knowledge would simply be coloring the path the child has began to walk, affecting their future development, and failing to provide a balance of ideas.

So then we are left with only a few options: Teach our children nothing and hope they receive a balanced education on the matter when they reach an age they can comprehend things (Which for some people never comes), attempt to teach them as balanced as education, or what we think.

Absolutely

i want to beat you right now and i'm not even him

If you like beating little children, you actually prove my argument.

Radicalism was needed to bring your attention.

Religions are evolved ideas.
They have defense mechanisms: circural logic ("the bible is true. Why? Because it says it's true"), punishment for apostasy (death in islam), removed ability to judge the logic of own beliefs. They have mechanisms for spreading: you have to bring up your children in faith, convert infidels, missionaries.
Religions are clusters of ideas that have a virus-like abilities. The wors kind of memes.

>there's nothing we can impart to our children that would be considered "correct"
The governments of civilised coutries are all secular for a reason. That's the default state. After reaching adulthood you may take your dose of catholicism or whatever drug you like.

It sounds like your beef is with the idea of philosophies in their entirety. Reality has no ultimate goal, no objective truth or meaning, unless you irrationally derive one from nothing. This very act is in violation of your desire for a completely rational and logic based society; in that sense, by what metric do you measure religion as a detriment to society/humanity as a whole? Does religion or philosophy prevent something you define as "good?" How did you come to define this concept as "good?" Did the notion come from within yourself, or was it tested and confirmed by external data? Was it a belief that came from popular thought, or by a group of elites, or by the workings of nature itself?

Perhaps you could point to animals and their instincts as a universal truth -- it's something certainly found within the natural world, and we can observe and measure their effects as they function independently of ourselves. In that case, you might suggest survival is the ultimate goal of life. But even then, would something else, such as the human concept of "greatness," also be an appealing goal to the mind? How would you reconcile these two neigh universal concepts and determine, logically and factually speaking, which one is paramount of the two? And this is before you arrive at the multitudes of other goals humans find desirable among themselves.

And then that leads to the question of if various humans assign different qualities and importances to life, is any one interpretation intrinsically wrong, or is it only relative to others that preferential treatment is given? How do you determine the value of one user suggesting that scientific development of man to achieve spaceflight holds more merit than another user who suggests the study of the human brain holds more pressing and that resources should be used towards it instead? Since there is no objective goal we can logically hold, this becomes impossible to determine.

As far as secular governments go, you can also state that just as some of the most successful governments are secular, so have some of the worst. I will use the subjective valuations of popular schools of thought from the west on the matter since that's a fairly well accepted notion of trends that we can usually see among people.

I will take places such as Germany, France, and Britain as examples of some of the best secular governments in the world, and pull various metrics of "success" randomly to illustrate why I choose them. You are welcome to describe your own metrics in your own post, but please explain why you chose them. For sure, the quality of life of the average citizen is some of the highest in the world, even across all time. The scientific developments of each country is also staggering in comparison to many other places within the world. The industrial might of each nation, though all three suffered setbacks after the second world war, was also quite impressive. The measure of democracy, in as much as each citizen has the chance to have their voice heard, ranks very high.

As a corollary though, I will also point out Russia, China, and the time period Iraq spent under secular rule as examples of some of the worst secular governments. All three had immense growth of their industrial sectors during these times. All three have had a burst in scientific development relative to their past eras, and one relative to other nations in the world as well. The quality of life among their citizens, although for some there were improvements, also remained incredibly low compared to many other places in the world. The suffrage of the population was also nearly non-existent in each, and many held incredibly narrowminded approaches to the exploration of new schools of thought.

Please define why you think a secular state is the "default state," when throughout history, truly secular states have been nearly non-existent.

>Reality has no ultimate goal, no objective truth or meaning
That is not absolutely certain but I'll agree (for now). However I'm not going to just lie down and die, rather I will set my own goals. Privately I can usually distinguish what is good or bad for me (happiness / suffering). And I view humanity as a collective of individuals that also chose not to lie down and die. The worst state for humanity would be suffering for all ending with death for all. You can of course argue, that different people have different needs and ideas of good or bad. But I say: rational society has a better chance of dealing with that. There will be less suffering if we try to figure out how to prevent suffering instead of praying for that.

>most successful governments are secular, so have some of the worst.
Cult of personality authoritarian state is hardly secular. Megalomaniac rulers used to consider themselves as gods. They tend to be less notorious these days but the religious devotion of believers persist.

>secular state is the "default state,"
I ment secular is the default state of the mind. You need time (generations) to organize organized religion.
Following the phase of fundamental states, a secular government is a progress in political systems. One of many elements leading to a higher quality of life for more citizens.

>>Or at least we should truly respect freedom of belief by forbiding parents forcing their religion unto children (they are to young to consent).
t. Jan Matthys

> He was killed, dismembered and his head stuck on a pike. Later that evening, his genitals were nailed to the city door.
Stronger meme kills the competing branch.

Cause there are no atheist out there that abuse childeren right

I don't suggest anyone lie down and die, really. It's not rational at all that we continue to function, but I'm willing to acquiesce to the chemicals in my brain telling me that's a foolish idea, even though I can't state why. Perhaps I continue on to find the why.

Divining what's good and bad for the self, and society as a whole though, is a pretty subjective sort of thing. Back to my earlier suggestion, I've eventually surmised for myself that the traditional idea of survival is great and all, what with retaining my flesh and blood for as long as I can, but ultimately, it's a futile practice. That's why I've decided that survival can also constitute of one's effect on the world.

I would argue a man who lived twenty years yet had a profound effect on his surroundings, who's actions have rippled out and can still be felt today has done a better job "surviving" than a man who lived a quiet, solitary life free of pain and filled with joy. I suppose that would be in line with some philosophers of old, though I'd prefer to paint it in a silly sort of way modern audiences might related to: The goal of a game in an arcade is not to continue playing as long as you can, but to have your name immortalized on top of a scoreboard. In that sense, you have had a more lasting effect on your surroundings than the man who's played the longest. Cheesy, sure, but it does sort of illustrate what I'm talking about.

I would also say it's very debatable if rationality leads to better odds of survival. Surely there has been examples in the past of irrational behavior leading to more fortuitous outcomes than cautious, rational action. I would argue the irrational superstitions or instincts of men of antiquity would leave them better equipped than a supposed more rational man to be aware of unknown agents and quantities entering their sphere of knowledge. And Ancient China, what with its myriad of various irrational Confucian philosophies, had managed to carve itself probably one of the largest and most functional states of its time with ideas that perhaps ran contrary to the good of the individual.

I must argue if Cults of Personality can be considered a form of religion, than perhaps any ideology can be considered one as well. Certainly there are cases of individuals holding specific ideals to be nearly sacred, especially in these ideologically charged times. The rights of man could be considered a major cult of philosophy that many outwardly secular citizens subscribe to when in reality such a thing could present a detriment to one's happiness or well being. In that sense, any idea held without proof could be a "religious" idea.

And with that said, while organized, codified religions don't spring into being overnight, I would say the default state of mind for individuals is not entirely rational at all. Leave a child to fend for themselves, and they will develop misconceptions on the nature of how things work. These misconceptions eventually lead to the development of specific beliefs despite empirical evidence to support them, which eventually evolve into dogma that is often spread to others. This is why religion simply can't be dealt away with -- it's programmed into our very being in a way by the simple nature of how our minds work. Assuming otherwise would mean that an outside source had to introduce the concept of religion to humanity.

>The governments of civilised coutries are all secular for a reason.

Unfortunately.

>If you kill your enemy, they win
Jesus H. Christ

I don't think there are any atheist pedos out their that use their atheism as a pretence to abuse children. Unlike pedo priests.

>Perhaps I continue on to find the why.
Continuing existence leaves an open door for gathering more knowledge. Maby even finding out that you were wrong and reality actually has an ultimate goal. That would make you look silly if you chose to die.

> retaining my flesh and blood for as long as I can, but ultimately, it's a futile practice
Don't be so sure, immortality might be just around the corner.

>Divining what's good and bad for the self, and society as a whole though, is a pretty subjective sort of thing.
Sure. But then you went further than me with that, so I have nothing to argue against.

>it's very debatable if rationality leads to better odds of survival.
Do you really believe that or just argue for the sake of it?
Instincts worked in the bushes and were completely rational then. Some are still useful and rational.
Now consider fighting wars for your god or ritualistic mass suicides.
Also rational would be to lie you are a christian if you end up in Europe 1200AD. It might even be rational to believe it's true back then considering information that was available.
You are actually arguing, that it's rational to be irrational, because it increases your chances of survival. You're proving the point unknowingly.

> perhaps any ideology can be considered one as well
Of course!
I think an idea is too small portion of information. But a package of ideas, an ideology can be viral just like religion. We should distinguish them by the level of holtility to the host. For example religions usually try to keep the population uneducated - this keeps religions alive.

>Leave a child to fend for themselves, and they will develop misconceptions on the nature of how things work
It will develop ideas to help it survive. It will work it's way to understanding the surroundings. That is completely rational. At first primitive beliefs are the best they have. Problem is when organized religions won't let go of the misconceptions and prey on them.

Anyway thanks for the discussion. Going to sleep now.

Tips communal wife

>Since religions are mental viruses, shouldn't we sterilize and put the believers in concentration camps so that it won't spread?
>They are mentally ill so incapacitation is not a legal issue.
As an atheist I have only one thing to say about this: Please OP, remove yourself from the population.

Organized religion is a problem, private belief within sensible laws is fine. But op you sound like a fag and I'm thinking of beating you up just reading your shit.

Yes baptism is rape of the worst kind, you are nobody to decide the belief of others, chances are the kid might end up a gnostic whom wants to fucking murder you for putting him close to his spiritual enemies.
Baptism should be illegal to force, violators should be punished by torture.

euphoric

>there's a religion where the god of bible thumpers is the ruler of darkness
>they basically baptize you in hell
>still go and be a total edgelord and baptize a kid instead of letting him choose
Watch that edge bible thumpers it cuts metal and bone

>mental virus
>mental

Uh are you implying that minds exist? That's a heresy against materialism. Off to the gas chamber with you!

atheist are banned from this thread, get out create your own help group

Is that a crime?

I will die for your sins

Mind is matter

Wait wut? Don't throw OP out of his own thread.

i cant tell if youre just legitimately retarded or if youre a christfag or muslim subhuman posing as an atheist to smear their image.

anyways, this just goes back to interpretation of the constitution. we have freedom OF religion but technically we don't have FROM religion. its just that secularism is so mainstreams there's no putting a lid on it. at this point the remnants of christianity (who still occupy quite powerful positions) cant afford to allow freedom from religion (making it literally illegal to indoctrinate children with a certain religion) because they know their batshit insane religion wont last a single generation

>The governments of civilised coutries are all secular for a (((reason))).
right
>That's the default state
WRONG

>Continuing existence leaves an open door for gathering more knowledge.
Why value knowledge in the first place though?

I'm a retarded subhuman atheist.
Thank you for your contribution, friend :).

Read Utility.

is

They just say that there is no Heaven so it's okay for them to do it.