Theism is literally childish

[possibletarian]

As someone who was raised in a religious environment, and then later spent many years as a Christian, I find the doubt, the searching for an answer using my own moral standards actually an exciting journey. No longer am I bound my rules and laws that often i knew deep down were themselves immoral. I also like that the world is uncertain, that it can be shaped that you can contribute.

I felt the same way when I threw off religious laws.

And then again when I decided all of society's laws don't apply to me, either.

You're a mess, but a likeable one

---

I'm just going to put this out here wondering if anyone will read it. Title:

Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...7qcUsKH2rk

Shorter version/discussion in this article:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/fantasy-or-r...ers-295684

Read the bottom one, very interesting. I have a lot of time for people and families who have made the choice to come out of religious institutions.

[Nay_Sayer]

Unfortunately, it seems that for every civil, open-minded individual who is willing to engage in serious, thoughtful discussion on these forums and IRL, there is also an impolite, uncivil person who argues for the sake of arguing and is tuned out to learning anything new/different.  I'm sorry if you've encountered too many of these types of people on AF and IRL.  However, I would hope that this statement is not a generalization of all atheist members on this site.

All? No. Most? Yes. If you think that's not fair, just look at Minimalist's tag line and thread titles, then look at his rep points.

It's gotten bad enough that I don't even play games (mafia, fantasy football) here anymore.

Yet here you remain to make sure all are present when you retreat to the fainting couch.

It is just as easy to find a  forum more suited to your needs where you can happily frolic in an echo chamber.

[Anomalocaris]

If the atheists on this site are what you consider mature adults, I'll take being a child, thanks.

Then go back to the kindergarten.

[Nay_Sayer]

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.

It would seem your both woefully ignorant about what provocation is and I'm kind of surprised CL is the one that brought it up.

I'll help you both;  When you see a topic that makes you feel uncomfortable because it asks questions you've refused to ever ask yourself that isn't provocation, It's discussion.

If you see a thread and the beginning line is something like "I think we can all agree Christians are all just morons" that is, in fact, provocation.

I hope this has been informative and I return you to your regularly scheduled martyrdom.

[Edwardo Piet]

So much for the rule against wild generalizations...

It doesn't apply to true generalizations, remember?

---

Oh, why don't you and Alpha go cry somewhere, ya snowflakes.

I actually wasn't referring to atheist behavior on the boards. Kernel incorrectly inferred that. I was referring to the miserable personal lives that so many of you have.

He didn't infer that. He said he would hope that that wasn't what you meant. In truth he very reasonably left all options open for you but you chose to pick the one that made him look the most unfavorable.

---

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

I agree. Thankfully the OP is claiming that theism is childish, not that theists are childish.

I don't think you're a childish person, for example, I think your belief in God is a childish belief, but there's a lot more about you as a person than your theism. You are clearly a mature adult.

[KevinM1]

I won't lie - I find other people's reliance on a 'greater power' to be, at best, strange.  It doesn't make sense to me at all, on a fundamental level.

I find that interesting.  One of the advantages I find in the religious mindset is precisely their apprehension of an interested and sometimes helpful higher power.  Of course you did say "reliance on" and wherever it amounts to that, what utility there may be otherwise is more than offset by the self abnegation.  But god belief is not required to enjoy this advantage.

My feelings stem from needing an actual chaperone figure in my life in order to live.  Where some find comfort in the idea of a presence watching out for them, I chafe at the idea.  I love the people who help take care of me... they’re family, but even so I still feel confined and restricted in who I can be, what I can do.  It’s not an arrangement I think most people would actually seek if they knew how it actually works in practice.

I’ve also always been a very internalized person.  When something bad happens, I withdraw into myself, and I hate it when others try to pry what I’m feeling out of me.  I always work best alone, whether that’s actual work or life’s various bad rolls of the dice.  Again, I think it’s because I rely on others for my physical needs.  I want to at least be able to handle the other stuff on my own.  And I do a fairly good job of it, IMO.

Moreover, the story of Christ is immoral to many of us.  The sacrifice of another in order to offer us a path to salvation because of something inherent in us (sin) which is woefully defined, and, really, shouldn't be something such a powerful being should be affected by.  If I've done anything wrong, then let me be judged, let me pay restitution.

Yeah, but only if you take it literally.  Just because they do, I don't think it makes sense for us to foist literalism on what is better taken as metaphor.

Except that Christians believe that this was a real person who was really sacrificed on our behalf.  I certainly don’t believe in any of the metaphysical aspects of the story, but since it’s the underpinning of the entire thing, I feel it’s necessary to call a spade a spade.  

Maybe I’m missing something, but even if the story isn’t taken literally, I don’t see much value in it.

[Catholic_Lady]

So much for the rule against wild generalizations...

It doesn't apply to true generalizations, remember?

---

I actually wasn't referring to atheist behavior on the boards. Kernel incorrectly inferred that. I was referring to the miserable personal lives that so many of you have.

He didn't infer that. He said he would hope that that wasn't what you meant. In truth he very reasonably left all options open for you but you chose to pick the one that made him look the most unfavorable.

---

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

I agree. Thankfully the OP is claiming that theism is childish, not that theists are childish.

I don't think you're a childish person, for example, I think your belief in God is a childish belief, but there's a lot more about you as a person than your theism. You are clearly a mature adult.

The thread title is calling theism childish, but the entire post itself is full of assertions and generalizations about theist people themselves.

I am curious to hear why this doesn't break the recent rule against provocation and rash generalization. Im not complaining or anything, and I'm not going to reported it. Just curious.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I think you should report it if you think it really breaks the rules, but only if you think it really breaks the rules. If you don't think it really breaks the rules, I'd be interested to know why you think it doesn't, and then maybe that answer could answer your own question.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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

It's not so much that theists don't feel so responsible for their actions in that they are giving up responsibility for their actions to someone else.

They are partially outsourcing their decision making process by deliberately going to a service every Sunday to be preached to. And it's not just an hour or so of praise about how wonderful their god is, but preaching about what people should value (e.g. family values), about how to live their lives, about what people should hate (e.g. homosexuality, pornography, masturbation etc)

Obviously theists can't be micromanaged throughout their entire day to day life, and so must take some responsibility. but they are still asking for guidance in the same way that a child asks for guidance from their parents. Compare this to having to make a moral judgment about particularly complex situations where there are many unintended consequences. It's a lot easier to advocate throwing away the key on all felons for example if you have someone in authority (who isn't an expert) telling you to take the easiest option and a whole congregation agreeing with you. Whereas having to decide all by yourself means that you have to face up to the possibility of being wrong, which no one ever likes to admit.

Of course it is a generalisation. There will always be exceptions. But what I am describing is typical of organised religion because it means a large power base of voters can be influenced to exercise their political power en masse. A church is more than just a collection of like-minded individuals, it's a group of individuals conditioned to become more like-minded.

[Brian37]

If the atheists on this site are what you consider mature adults, I'll take being a child, thanks.

Then like a child you should be restricted from doing adult things. No driving, no playing on the internet, no traveling by yourself, no use of a phone without adult supervision. 

Alpha, you'd love for us to make this solely about your particular deity and club, but for us it isn't. 

I reject Buddhism and Hinduism as well, just like you rightfully reject the mythology of Egypt, and Rome and Greek.