Theism is literally childish

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't spend too much time commenting on fathers, Kevin.  God is their father just as much as they have a "relationship" with him..which is not at all.  Not at all, and even a believer understands that this is devotional language which signifies nothing in particular. You're being led around in pointless circles, lol. This particular brand of belief is nothing if not endless circum-ambulation.

In the absence of any experience of god from which the faithful can comment directly, we are being treated to the supposed periphery of the divine....as though the book itself were the object of veneration. Which, ofc, it is. What are a gaggle of book-worshippers going to be able to tell you about gods?

[I_am_not_mafia]

To explain, I am saying that that your god does not exist, not that children are taught that your god is non-existent.

Isn't it the typical Christian belief that only God can truly pass judgment?

If so then a consequence of this is that everyone else's judgment is less important.

Here is your argument:
1. Only God can judge a person (as all your references point out, we are told not to judge other people because of xyz--only God has the ability/right)
2. [size=small]Therefore the consequence of our actions are irrelevant

Maybe you should actually read what I say because that is not my argument at all. Why would i argue that if I also state that your god does not exist?

You are conflating religious indoctrination with how you raise children. I am specifically referring to religious indoctrination. Most christians do not raise their children solely through religious indoctrination. Although we do see horrendous cases when parents actually do. Your very argument is that "99% of childhood moral guidelines are exactly the same as a non-religious family", which means that your objection is irrelevant because I specifically referred to religious conditioning.

The title of this thread is Theism is Childish. Then you said "Religious conditioning from birth essentially stops the maturation process." Now you are trying to hide behind a new term: indoctrination. Then you say that "Most christians do not raise their children solely through religious indoctrination". The backpedaling is impressive. So now we are talking about a thing that rarely happens? That seems to terminally undermine your premise.

No, i am singling out religious indoctrination / conditioning. I use the words indoctrination and conditioning interchangeably. Is this wrong?

I also stated that when parents do raise their children solely via religious indoctrination / conditioning that the results are generally horrendous,.

You are the one making a strawman argument by conflating raising a child and specific religious indoctrination when I have only ever tried to characterise how religious conditioning / indoctrination arrests a child's development in specific ways,

First, you have failed to link why adhering to a standard moral code is inferior to reasoning into one. I would argue from a societal standpoint, that a well-structured moral code is way superior to having everyone reason out their own.

Because morality changes over time as society progresses. If we only ever adopt the morality that we have been taught then society cannot progress. After all, there are many moral codes in the bible that are now completely ignored and are seen as barbaric.

Second, adherence to any moral code is still a choice.

But this is not the aim of religious indoctrination, which tries to set a child's moral code for life. This is why children are prime targets.

Third, we are talking about a moral code that most of the world agrees with 95%-

Really? So the moral code in the bible such as marrying your rape victim, keeping slaves, mutilating women etc you are saying that 95% of the world agree with that? Or has morality evolved since the bible was written? If so then you have the reason why everyone has to evaluate their own moral code.,

 Fourth, you have failed to make the connection to why someone who adheres to such a moral code is immature/pitiful/contemptuous. 

I never said that. I said that religious indoctrination stops the maturing process which involves developing your own moral code. Many people consider such neglect to be akin to child abuse. That at least deserves pity. I only said that I have contempt for the converts who give up trying and take the blue pill when they know better, much in the same way that some people sign away their freedoms for some imagined evil or don't care what their government does to allow them to live in relative luxury. And the reason I have contempt, as I stated, is because we can only make the world  a better place if we all work at it together. People who take the benefit of an improved society without trying to make the world a better place themselves are freeloaders.

You really think so? You don't think that part of growing up means independently deciding these things for yourself? I take it then that you still have the exact same values as your parents, and your grandparents, and their parents etc ...

Sure, I am the son of a pastor and I don't have the same exact values as my parents. Seem like I did independently decide things for myself in spite of the "religious conditioning". My brother walked away from it all. Seem my personal examples undermine your premise. 

But as I keep stating, i am only talking about the intended effect of religious conditioning, not how successful it is.

[Brian37]

To explain, I am saying that that your god does not exist, not that children are taught that your god is non-existent.

Isn't it the typical Christian belief that only God can truly pass judgment?

If so then a consequence of this is that everyone else's judgment is less important.

Here is your argument:
1. Only God can judge a person (as all your references point out, we are told not to judge other people because of xyz--only God has the ability/right)
2. Therefore the consequence of our actions are irrelevant

These things are not related--not in the least. #2 is made up to support your argument. 

You are conflating religious indoctrination with how you raise children. I am specifically referring to religious indoctrination. Most christians do not raise their children solely through religious indoctrination. Although we do see horrendous cases when parents actually do. Your very argument is that "99% of childhood moral guidelines are exactly the same as a non-religious family", which means that your objection is irrelevant because I specifically referred to religious conditioning.

The title of this thread is Theism is Childish. Then you said "Religious conditioning from birth essentially stops the maturation process." Now you are trying to hide behind a new term: indoctrination. Then you say that "Most christians do not raise their children solely through religious indoctrination". The backpedaling is impressive. So now we are talking about a thing that rarely happens? That seems to terminally undermine your premise.

Maybe you should actually try countering the point I actually made though that if you are taught to accept a morality without question rather than taught to think through the morality of your actions then you are being conditioned to obey authority and have faith rather than ask why. Your argument is that a religious parent is still capable of teaching morality, but if you believe that morality is absolute and has been described in the Bible then it cannot be adequately justified. This teaches the child to use a get-out clause for any of its moral decisions later on in life. i.e. Because the bible says so.

I answered the point: You made up your own version of what is taught (and still are). You insert the phrase "without question" to bolster your point. Why? Is that in the Bible? No. Do parents teach this? Not in anyway I have ever witnessed. Then you say "conditioned to obey authority". What conditioning is needed? If I believe God exists, doesn't it follow automatically that he is an authority? Then you finish with "have faith rather than ask why". What in the world does faith have to do with moral questions? Nothing. 

The fact that a Christian believes that morality is grounded in the nature of God and therefore objective actually means that it is "adequately justified." The fact that a child might use a moral standard later in life that he did not reason to himself does nothing to make him immature/pitiful/contemptuous. 

In that case it's even worse. Religious indoctrination saddles children with a personal moral code that they have responsibility for, but no power to decide by themselves. Power and responsibility must always be evenly matched. What religious indoctrination does is burden a child with a moral code developed from ancient times that they then must seek to make work in the modern world. And if the religious indoctrination sticks, the child will have no power to do so without believing that they are going against the bible and risk eternal damnation.

First, you have failed to link why adhering to a standard moral code is inferior to reasoning into one. I would argue from a societal standpoint, that a well-structured moral code is way superior to having everyone reason out their own. Second, adherence to any moral code is still a choice. Third, we are talking about a moral code that most of the world agrees with 95%--so where exactly are the "burdens" that are placed on children that somehow stunts them? Fourth, you have failed to make the connection to why someone who adheres to such a moral code is immature/pitiful/contemptuous. 

At least with secular moral teachings you can properly explain why the moral code you are instilling in the child is worthwhile. And as the child matures you can accept that they have the power and responsibility to make their own decisions rather than be bound by some ancient book.

Again, you imagine a parent saying "because the Bible says so, end of discussion". As your backpedaling above illustrated, if this is a rare occurrence, then this is a strawman that get's you no closer to your premise. 

You really think so? You don't think that part of growing up means independently deciding these things for yourself? I take it then that you still have the exact same values as your parents, and your grandparents, and their parents etc ...

Sure, I am the son of a pastor and I don't have the same exact values as my parents. Seem like I did independently decide things for myself in spite of the "religious conditioning". My brother walked away from it all. Seem my personal examples undermine your premise. 

I am not going to derail the thread like Alpha Male tried to do. This is just a typical theist deflection tactic. Yes, I do state that god does not exist rather than that I lack a belief in a god like the majority of atheists. I can't prove this any more than you can prove that thunder is not caused by Thor. But if you accept that scientific explanations suffice to explain thunder, then it is also acceptable for me to draw on the scientific literature to explain that were a god to exist, the gap for it to fill would be so small because of what we now know that it would be utterly irrelevant to our every day lives and certainly nothing like the kind of god that christians believe in. That is assuming that you could even define what a god is, which no one has yet managed,

No deflection. Just pointing out that you are making assertions (when you say things like God does not exist, prayer is not answered, there is no heaven, etc.), not arguments. Assertions don't support conclusions.

No, saying that your God does not exist is not an assertion. Just like you accept that Allah does not exist, just like you accept Vishnu and Thor do not exists. You don't get to blame us for a book we were not around to write. 

Prayer is a placebo at best, your prayers are merely your own wishful thinking. Just like the Mayans and Romans and Greeks also prayed to their deities that were never real. Your buying that is your baggage not ours.

[Amarok]

If they had something that works in full, there wouldn't still be competing theories.

Bullshit there can be more then one completely workable mechanism. Once again your ignorance remains

---

Yup CL and most of us are ex theists or raised in theist households .And came to the logic conclusion that's what we were being taught and that it is the logical out come of said teaching . Funny how so many theists tell me i don't live up to the logical  consequences of my atheism. Well look in the mirror . As for natural theology unless it draws from a biblical foundation and authority all you have done is  abandoned Christianity over to undefined theism . 

As for the farther rubbish considering ancient Jewish  and Christian were patriarchies the term master and farther are interchangeable. 

As for the idea that the god of Christianity is much different then the vengeful gods of old . Reread the old testament .

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, I guess if I believed in the kind of God the atheists are describing then I suppose that might count as delusional. Personally, I don't believe in that God nor do I know any Christians that do.

Whatever kind of God you believe in it's still clearly indistinguishable from non-existence and simultaneously supposedly a silly caretaker who allows evil in the world "because free will" which doesn't even exist. And that's fucking retarded. And that applies to all the Abrahamic gods, not just yours. The very basic assumptions are retarded from the get go.

[Amarok]

Well, I guess if I believed in the kind of God the atheists are describing then I suppose that might count as delusional. Personally, I don't believe in that God nor do I know any Christians that do.

Lol ah the that's not my god defense odd how an unchanging god always seems different depending on the situation .

And the god you worship seems no less a delusion (note that's not the same as saying no god exists so screw off road)

[RoadRunner79]

It would seem that at least is some sense, you need to make the second claim, in order to make the first. But let me guess... you are not really saying anything here!

[Brian37]

If they had something that works in full, there wouldn't still be competing theories.

Bullshit there can be more then one completely workable mechanism. Once again your ignorance remains

---

Yup CL and most of us are ex theists or raised in theist households .And came to the logic conclusion that's what we were being taught and that it is the logical out come of said teaching . Funny how so many theists tell me i don't live up to the logical  consequences of my atheism. Well look in the mirror . As for natural theology unless it draws from a biblical foundation and authority all you have done is  abandoned Christianity over to undefined theism . 

As for the farther rubbish considering ancient Jewish  and Christian were patriarchies the term master and farther are interchangeable. 

As for the idea that the god of Christianity is much different then the vengeful gods of old . Reread the old testament .

Again, lets be fair to CL, we also have Atlass and Mystic whom are Muslims. I see all of antiquity worldwide as not having our modern knowledge, not just the 3 religions of Abraham.

Hinduism and Buddhism is full of mythology and superstition too. Religion in our entire species history has been dominated by Patriarchal memes. Even the top deities of the Egyptians and Romans and Greeks were all males. Buddha mythology had a female give birth to a male hero too. 

This really stems from our species ignorance back then that brawn was better than nurture. Evolution proves that neither are better than the other but both different attributes and both contribute half of the offspring's genes. 

Sexism till exists widely even in China and India and Japan too. You wont see a female Dali Lama anytime soon either. 

The modern concept of girls/females being equal is a modern concept. Back in antiquity females were seen as heros depending, but not at the same scale, and most of the time the female heros in religion were created more to be a glorification to the male head gods, rather than being a top god and a leader.

Point being, the entire world was scientifically ignorant and had no clue.

[John V]

I am not saying that religious indoctrination explicitly states that the consequences of your actions are irrelevant, but it achieves this by trivialising the importance of your real-world life with the idea of an eternity of happiness and agony. And it is taught that this judgment is only carried out by your god.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Bible teaches that we get - or miss out on - eternal rewards based on our actions in this life.

[Cod]

What did Jesus say in Mark 3? Oh yeah, do as you like basically. As long as you are sorry and tickle my balls.