Theism is literally childish

[SteveII]

1.1 - This sentence makes no sense. The second half does not follow from the first. God's judgement would be a significant consequence and very relevant. However, you made up what children are taught to make your point (classic definition of a strawman argument). See 1.2

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. 

1.2 - Who teaches their 2 year old to share or not not to hit because the Bible says so? Who teaches an 8 year old not to cheat on their test because the Church says so? Who teaches a 13 year old not to drink and do drugs because Jesus says so? Your assertion has no basis in reality because 99% of childhood moral guidelines are exactly the same as a non-religious family. Do you imagine that religious parent somehow become incapable to teaching morality without answering "because the 10 commandments forbid it and we don't ask questions"? You are erecting a strawman.

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. 

1.3 - Here is where your reasoning goes off the rails. Where in the Bible does it even suggest that we are not responsible for our actions? In fact, personal responsibility is on nearly every page of the Bible. You conclude that following a written moral code leads to not being personally responsible. Your support for this seems to be that morality must be reasoned to rather than be instructed on. That is false and is not how morality is taught to children. 

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. 

1.4 - You have simply described every experience of every child ever.

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. 

Having utterly failed to link religious belief with childish thinking or maturity, you end with a series of assertions that center around one main assertion: God does not exist. Now, it is traditional for atheists here to hide behind the "I simply lack belief" nonsense. You, however are not. You are making a clear claim that God does not exists. Please support your assertion with proof.

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.