Theism is literally childish

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Immature and mature people exist in all groups. I think saying all theists or all atheists are immature, is immature.

---

I thought the same thing.

Though I think in this case it's allowed because Matilda actually forms an argument to back up her wildly generalized claim, which encourages discussion rather than being made purely for provocation purposes.

I'm not sure you can call that an argument and I don't think they are even generalizations. She just made shit up--sentence after sentence. Notice how the kudos came? The atheists here don't police their own when it comes to stupidity. I think its because they no longer recognize it. Talk about abdicating critical thinking!

I gave her kudos because I found the op interesting and thought that it was well formatted and presented in a coherent, concise manner.  However, I do not share the opinion of the thread title, as IMO, it inhibits genuine opportunities for mutual learning and dialog between the secular and non-secular camps.  With that said, you, along with Neo, Catholic Lady, alpha male, roadrunner, and ignorant, have posted some interesting/well formatted ideas on these boards, which I have found to be neat and kudos as a result.  Hence, for me at least, a cool/interesting idea is cool/interesting regardless of whether the person presenting it is secular, non-secular, or whatever.

[John V]

The converts though do not deserve pity so much as contempt because they have essentially outsourced their morality. They realise how difficult it is to make moral judgments because life is never black and white but always grey. So they're essentially letting someone else make those moral judgments for them instead.

So is it just a coincidence that most of the atheists here come down on the same side of these grey issues?

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not sure you can call that an argument and I don't think they are even generalizations. She just made shit up--sentence after sentence. Notice how the kudos came? The atheists here don't police their own when it comes to stupidity. I think its because they no longer recognize it. Talk about abdicating critical thinking!

I gave her kudos because I found the op interesting and thought that it was well formatted and presented in a coherent, concise manner.  However, I do not share the opinion of the thread title, as IMO, it inhibits genuine opportunities for mutual learning and dialog between the secular and non-secular camps.  With that said, you, along with Neo, Catholic Lady, alpha male, roadrunner, and ignorant, have posted some interesting/well formatted ideas on these boards, which I have found to be neat and kudos as a result.  Hence, for me at least, a cool/interesting idea is cool/interesting regardless of whether the person presenting it is secular, non-secular, or whatever.

I disagree with you that matildas claims and assertions about theists were cool or interestong lol, but i appreciate this post from you. A lot of the stuff she said wasn't even true. like that teaching a child about faith discourages thoughtfulness, takes away personal responsibility, makes you stop maturing mentally, etc. I'm not disputing that in some cases it does, depending on how it's done, but that certainly wasn't the case for me and many many others. I was taught that doubt is good because it makes you seek answers and may lead to a deepening of your faith. I was taught that it's important to understand why we believe certain acts are immoral, and there's not a single moral teaching that I blindly follow without understanding. I'd also say I'm not an immature person, but that's just my opinion I guess lol.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not sure you can call that an argument and I don't think they are even generalizations. She just made shit up--sentence after sentence. Notice how the kudos came? The atheists here don't police their own when it comes to stupidity. I think its because they no longer recognize it. Talk about abdicating critical thinking!

I assume one of the mods will jump in here and clarify particularly why/how this thread doesn't violate the discussion vs provocation rule. In the mean time, id rather just wait for that than make any conclusions or wrong assumptions about mod bias. They've never not been objective.

Personally I don't care. It just seems, as SteveIi, pointed out, that the people doling out kudos like pez are comfortable lumping all the various strains of theism from Scientology to Universalist Unitarian and mocking it all. But we're expected to qualify, like alpha with some or most etc.

[Catholic_Lady]

I assume one of the mods will jump in here and clarify particularly why/how this thread doesn't violate the discussion vs provocation rule. In the mean time, id rather just wait for that than make any conclusions or wrong assumptions about mod bias. They've never not been objective.

Personally I don't care. It just seems, as SteveIi, pointed out, that the people doling out kudos like pez are comfortable lumping all the various strains of theism from Scientology to Universalist Unitarian and mocking it all. But we're expected to qualify, like alpha with some or most etc.

I would say it's not the "mocking of all theism" that I think *might* be against the rules. It's the assertions being made about all theist people across the board.

---

Your point about how theists don't feel responsible for their actions because they believe in God makes no sense to me.

Me either, but whatever.

[SteveII]

I'm not sure you can call that an argument and I don't think they are even generalizations. She just made shit up--sentence after sentence. Notice how the kudos came? The atheists here don't police their own when it comes to stupidity. I think its because they no longer recognize it. Talk about abdicating critical thinking!

I assume one of the mods will jump in here and clarify particularly why/how this thread doesn't violate the discussion vs provocation rule. In the mean time, id rather just wait for that than make any conclusions or wrong assumptions about mod bias. They've never not been objective.

No, I don't think she broke the rules...just a bunch of silly nonsense.

[The Grand Nudger]

I hope this doesn't turn into an angst thread where an unfortunate rule is weaponized.

[Astreja]

(smiles quietly to herself as she reminisces about last night's community band practice, then lets her thoughts drift forward in time to a weekend of cooking with her daughter, puttering about her free-and-clear Edwardian era home, and perhaps going to a nature preserve for a nice hike)

You haven't a clue, AM.

I said many, not every. Didn't someone recently say goodbye for awhile as she'd be living out of her car soon? Or more commonly threads regarding depression and other mental illness have historically had a lot of participants. And then there's Brian...

---

And the regular threads in praise of porn and masturbation...

Perhaps the reason you're seeing threads like that, AM, is because we have nothing to hide.  We can talk freely about problems and brainstorm real-world solutions, without fear of having our faith questioned or being fed platitudes like "God never gives you any more than you can handle."

And if atheism does have any advantage over religious belief in the maturity department, it's because we look to ourselves to solve problems rather than indulging in magical thinking and waiting to be bailed out by a miracle.

[SteveII]

I'm not sure you can call that an argument and I don't think they are even generalizations. She just made shit up--sentence after sentence. Notice how the kudos came? The atheists here don't police their own when it comes to stupidity. I think its because they no longer recognize it. Talk about abdicating critical thinking!

I gave her kudos because I found the op interesting and thought that it was well formatted and presented in a coherent, concise manner.  However, I do not share the opinion of the thread title, as IMO, it inhibits genuine opportunities for mutual learning and dialog between the secular and non-secular camps.  With that said, you, along with Neo, Catholic Lady, alpha male, roadrunner, and ignorant, have posted some interesting/well formatted ideas on these boards, which I have found to be neat and kudos as a result.  Hence, for me at least, a cool/interesting idea is cool/interesting regardless of whether the person presenting it is secular, non-secular, or whatever.

Yea, it's hard to see how "The converts though do not deserve pity so much as contempt because they have essentially outsourced their morality" generates a real dialog. 

Hello, my name is Matilda and even though you are pitiful and/or contemptuous because I have assumed a whole bunch of unflattering things about you and your thinking abilities, I want to have a dialog to better understand you. 

[Catholic_Lady]

I assume one of the mods will jump in here and clarify particularly why/how this thread doesn't violate the discussion vs provocation rule. In the mean time, id rather just wait for that than make any conclusions or wrong assumptions about mod bias. They've never not been objective.

No, I don't think she broke the rules...just a bunch of silly nonsense.

I'd respond to every single one of her assertions about us, but... they are too many straws, for too little time.