Theism is literally childish

[Brian37]

Nobody here is claiming all atheists agree 100% of the time. We most certainly are just as diverse in our opinions as theists, I don't think any atheist here is denying that.

The point isn't the degree of diversity, which is low. The point is the high degree of agreement among atheists. It suggests that they're getting their moral judgments in part from shared outside sources, just as OP accuses theists of doing. They just go to different sources.

Um wrong. 

I do not have the same thing in common with an atheist who would claim abortion is immoral. I do not have the same thing in common with an atheist who things "sell more and do nothing" on issues of firearms. I do not have the same thing in common with claiming Ayn Rand's "fuck you I got mine" is moral. WE DO NOT agree on those things 100%.

But just like a Liberal Christian would agree with conservative Christian, they'd all claim our species morality can be explained by the bible. 

The Ayn Rand atheist, the firearm atheist, and the anti abortion atheists, whom I DON'T AGREE WITH on those issues, would agree regardless of our opposing positions that our morality is in us, not old books of mythology. 

Atheists certainly have different morals, the only thing we'd agree with is that those morals are not being handed to us from above. 

Pointing to our diversity only proves we are diverse, it does not prove your position. 

"You do it too, so therefor I am correct by default" is not an argument.

Still not up to the conservative atheist, or liberal atheist to do your homework for you.

"You do it too, so Allah is the one correct God"

"You do it too, so Buddha is the only path to wisdom"


"You do it too, so the Hindu God Bhrama is the one true God"

"You do it too, so Yahweh is the one true God".

Yes, atheists are diverse, so? Still has nothing to do with your ,lack of evidence. Yes, we have different morals so?

[I_am_not_mafia]

All people partially outsource their decision making process by seeking advice.

No it is different from getting advice. When seeking advice, you know what you want to achieve and they inform you how to do so.

If you go to a financial advisor with a large lump of savings and ask how to maximise your return on investment, you wouldn't be impressed if they told you to invest in certain corporations because they embody family values or diversity or whatever.

If you go along and say that you have these savings but do not want to fund certain activities which you find unethical, the financial advisor will ask specifically what you want to avoid and then advise you where you can invest instead.

The difference is that church tells what they think you should be wanting, not how to achieve what you want.

Again, if atheists are all figuring out these gray issues for themselves, why do they seem to mostly have the same beliefs on any given issue?

I would say because they aren't inhibited by organised religion from learning about the world in all its different aspects. You see this happen with far right politicians as well. They'll toe the party line about no straight marriage for example, until one of them has a daughter or son who is gay and they are forced to confront the issue and find out that the situation is more complicated than what they had previously believed. The kind of mindset that is comfortable questioning authority and discarding myths is also one that is more likely to find out about how the world works rather than accept a simplistic explanation that does not stand up to questioning.

[John V]

Um wrong. 

I do not have the same thing in common with an atheist who would claim abortion is immoral. I do not have the same thing in common with an atheist who things "sell more and do nothing" on issues of firearms. I do not have the same thing in common with claiming Ayn Rand's "fuck you I got mine" is moral. WE DO NOT agree on those things 100%.

And neither do Christians agree 100%, which was never my point. Do you seriously not get it, or are you just in denial?

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps shared moral conclusions among atheists as opposed to the disparate moral conclusion between groups of theists is more an issue of the only thing being left from which to make moral conclusions being the lowest common denominator?  I;d say the same thing regarding shared moral conclusions between groups of theists -and- atheists.  

Consider this, Alpha, if you removed all of the things you think are immoral "because god" you'd likely be left with the list of things I and many other atheists consider immoral.  Things that require no "outside source".  The only reason that your list contains items mine doesn't, is the god source. Mere morality, to borrow a christian meme, lol.

[John V]

No it is different from getting advice. When seeking advice, you know what you want to achieve and they inform you how to do so.

If you go to a financial advisor with a large lump of savings and ask how to maximise your return on investment, you wouldn't be impressed if they told you to invest in certain corporations because they embody family values or diversity or whatever.

If you go along and say that you have these savings but do not want to fund certain activities which you find unethical, the financial advisor will ask specifically what you want to avoid and then advise you where you can invest instead.

The difference is that church tells what they think you should be wanting, not how to achieve what you want.

Are you seriously suggesting that all atheist blogs just give how-to advice and don't take stances on moral issues?

I would say because they aren't inhibited by organised religion from learning about the world in all its different aspects. You see this happen with far right politicians as well. They'll toe the party line about no straight marriage for example, until one of them has a daughter or son who is gay and they are forced to confront the issue and find out that the situation is more complicated than what they had previously believed. The kind of mindset that is comfortable questioning authority and discarding myths is also one that is more likely to find out about how the world works rather than accept a simplistic explanation that does not stand up to questioning.

Do said politicians then go left, or do they stay mostly right, but with a more nuanced position?

Are there more churches who accept gays now than there were 100 years ago?

How do new religious sects emerge, if not from theists questioning what they're taught?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Consider OP - she says that when an adult converts to religion (i.e. a change in environment resulting from a personal choice), their mental faculties decline. And she says they deserve contempt for making that choice.

Because as a child you do not have a say on how you are raised, where you were born, who you were born to or how you are conditioned. Most people recognise this which is why religious belief is given a wider acceptance than say political beliefs, even though most people's political beliefs also mirror that of their parents. Religious indoctrination mainly focuses on children before they develop critical thinking skills. Think about how hard it would be now as an adult to start believing in Santa Claus again.

Yet this is what the new converts actually do. Now you can acknowledge that there was probably a lot of religious indoctrination in their upbringing that did not fully develop into theistic beliefs but did lay the ground work, and fair enough. But on the other hand, they did have a glimpse of the real world and gave it up to live in a fantasy. They knowingly choose the blue pill for their own personal comfort regardless of the cost to everyone else around them in doing so. It's no different to not caring how your government pillages the resources of third world countries and send young soldiers to die so you can continue to drive your gas guzzling SUV. We can only make the world a better place if we all work together. Those that take the blue pill of organised religion when they have a choice otherwise are deliberately slacking off and riding on the efforts of others to do the dirty work for them. And it is for this reason that I think their decision deserves contempt.

[Brian37]

Um wrong. 

I do not have the same thing in common with an atheist who would claim abortion is immoral. I do not have the same thing in common with an atheist who things "sell more and do nothing" on issues of firearms. I do not have the same thing in common with claiming Ayn Rand's "fuck you I got mine" is moral. WE DO NOT agree on those things 100%.

And neither do Christians agree 100%, which was never my point. Do you seriously not get it, or are you just in denial?

You, "You are diverse too"

Me, "No shit, and?"

You, "That makes you the same as me."

Me, "In what context?"

You, "We are the same".

Me, "No, we are not the same. We have different morals, what makes even diverse atheists different is only one thing, no matter what we ascribe as our personal morals, we don't assign that to deities or old holy books. That does not mean we all have the same morals."

All 7 billion humans are certainly equal in the context we are the same species, but that does not mean in saying that you have evidence for the God you want to be real. It doesn't make Allah or Yahweh real either.

Religion teaches that human's morality comes from a holy book or a holy person and or a divine place. Atheists don't have the same morality, we come in all political stripes and nationalities and skin tones too. The DIFFERENCE is that we don't assign human morality as being anything outside of nature.

You can call us diverse, fine, but no, we are different than you.

[I_am_not_mafia]

No it is different from getting advice. When seeking advice, you know what you want to achieve and they inform you how to do so.
...

The difference is that church tells what they think you should be wanting, not how to achieve what you want.

Are you seriously suggesting that all atheist blogs just give how-to advice and don't take stances on moral issues?

I haven't read any atheist blogs but this is not what you were asking. You were saying "All people partially outsource their decision making process by seeking advice." and now when I have answered that you have moved the goal posts.

Do said politicians then go left, or do they stay mostly right, but with a more nuanced position?

Generally yes.

Are there more churches who accept gays now than there were 100 years ago?

Yes but not because organised religion pushed for acceptance of homosexuality but because others did. New churches, like any good business, are created to satisfy a niche in the market place.

[The Grand Nudger]

Institutions, religious or political, resist change by their very nature and by necessity of survival, and so too do the people who serve them. They're explicitly organized so as to be normative.

[SaStrike]

Why is this in the christian section?

Why is everyone using the word literally so much these days? Almost all of the time it's redundant too. This is literally off topic. I apologize.

Back on topic. I'm going to have to agree with OP on this one. Theism (not just christianity) is childish but it doest slow the mental maturity rate that much. Deep down everyone knows they're just bullshitting themselves with the faith they have. But fear and stubbornness keeps it from surfacing that often.