Theism is literally childish

[Shell B]

Theism is a form of superstition more than mental illness, though it does feature heavily in the mental illness of religious individuals, to my knowledge.

[Amarok]

That alone would not make it 'delusional' to believe in supernatural phenomena whether it's ESP, ghosts, alien abductions, NDE's or any other claim for which a skeptic does not accept as having sufficient evidence.

Not what the skeptic accepts . What their is no objective evidence of period .

Just because those types of phenomena cannot be easily tested in a laboratory under controlled conditions doesn't mean it is irrational to think they could be real.

Then you have no real standard of fact from falsehood . 

The larger point is that atheists putting theistic beliefs in the same category as a serious mental illness is a mild form of anti-religious bigotry.

Nope criticizing beliefs as crazy is not bigotry

---

Bravo, Steve.  Funny how the self-proclaimed defenders of rationality will give kudos to such obvious drivel. It's almost as if saying stupid bad things about believers is reflexively accepted by many atheists. How can we even begin to have reasoned discussions with people lacking the ability to be selfcritical?

Steve did not disprove shit . None of this was drivel. Your whining projections do nothing PoeWooter.

---

No one wishes mental illness, just like no one wishes to have been gay.

Nope many people perfectly happy being gay

---

As for Alpha's ignorance  about abiogenesis that would take forever to correct but seven  points .

1. Were the hell are they trying to create homeostasis in a lab . let alone millions of experiments .

2. Uri miller was not trying to reproduce abiogenesis  regardless of what the popular press kept saying . 

3. The only difference between animate and inanimate matter . Is a single chemical process we understand quite well .     But can't replicate as it is beyond our current abilities . 

4. Uri millers experiments have been redone under updated conditions and got even better results . 

5. Time is not equal to magic . 

6. Abiogenesis by any current understanding would only happen once .

7. Evolution is occurring all the time

---

As for the idea the universe came from nothing . I never said it does only that there is no reason to believe the universe came from anywhere. And no science does not say the universe had a beginning that's apologist crap.

---

All wars between theists have ultimately had religious undertones .

---

And yet they one and all believe that we should love the Lord above all things and our neighbor as oneself. Funny, how that works.

A vague weak definition and statement .

---

As for Roads silly argument that considering theism (a BELIEF in god ) is delusional is the same as saying god does not exist this simply is not so . 

One can  argue that to the atheists current knowledge theism seems indistinguishable from delusion. While maintaining a lack of belief . 

Same as the fact that if theists were delusional that does not disprove god .

[Amarok]

As for Beta's moronic attempts to project his mentality on to atheists 

1. No YOUR more emotional then logical kindly 

2. No YOUR basing your idea's on confirmation bias 

3. No atheist blogs are not the same as a church going somewhere to hear idea from a colleague  is not the same as following a churches authority 

4. Their is nothing wrong with porn . And sex is not limited to a real woman . Ans certainly not to marriage . 

5. Evolution has dick to do with atheism nor emotions 

6. And no atheists coming to the same conclusion is not equal to a church .

[KevinM1]

Theism is a form of superstition more than mental illness, though it does feature heavily in the mental illness of religious individuals, to my knowledge.

As an outsider to religion, the line for me becomes incredibly blurred when theists start talking about their relationship with their god. Are they merely ascribing fortuitous events as a sign that their god's telling them they're on the right path? Do they actually, literally hear what they presume to be their deity?

It's just strikes me as incredibly odd. And, in any case, I find master/servant relationships troublesome.

[Amarok]

To further my point about Beta 


It's not just climate change he sucks at

[I_am_not_mafia]

Which means that we need to look at plausibility. How likely is it that an explanation is correct? How many questions does it satisfactorily answer compared to competing explanations? Does it rely on assumptions that we have no basis in making? Do we see the same process or phenomenon happen elsewhere for the same reasons? Can we test the hypothesis and reproduce the results?

Fine. When you can show me a single hypothesis on abiogenesis that meets these standards you'll have something. Unitl then, you're just saying that you personally find material explanations plausible, even if there's scant evidence to support them.

First I need to demonstrate that you are selective about the standards that you ask for depending on your existing beliefs. There are two explanations for thunderstorms. The first is the idea that it is caused by Thor, the god of thunder. The scientific explanation is that:

... the cloud becomes a thundercloud. Lots of small bits of ice bump into each other as they move around. All these collisions cause a build up of electrical charge.

Eventually, the whole cloud fills up with electrical charges. Lighter, positively charged particles form at the top of the cloud. Heavier, negatively charged particles sink to the bottom of the cloud.

When the positive and negative charges grow large enough, a giant spark - lightning - occurs between the two charges within the cloud.

Now unless you admit to special pleading then your world view holds that the two are equal. Your very same arguments against abiogenesis can also be used to argue that Thor is responsible for lightning and thunder.

You say that no experiments in a lab have ever resulted in abiogenesis, yet you can say the same about thunder. We just don't have labs big enough to create continent sized weather systems or access to a newly formed planet.

You claim that plausibility is a bullshit concept, so that must mean that it is just as plausible to you that Thor is as responsible for thunderstorms as the idea that it is a purely meteorological event.

But we understand both electricity and the process of self organisation to the extent that we use both for practical purposes, but using your argument this would be evidence for intelligent thunder. We can create arcs of static electricity that resemble lightning in a lab, but we can also create synthetic life in a lab.

Is Life Essentially Different from Inanimate Matter?
Special report: Where next for synthetic life?

Using your very same arguments I could say that the static electricity from a Van de Graaf generator is not the same as lightning. I could use your reasons for dismissing the Urey-Millar experiments by saying that the conditions in the lab do not match those of a thunder cloud. All the ways we use electricity in practice would, using your arguments, be evidence of a designer responsible for a thunder storm.

I could try restricting the debate to use non-scientific terms such as thunder claps in the same way you do use phrases like 'inanimate matter' and then complain about word games when someone tries to explain about sound waves and echoes.

And like you, if anyone tries to convince me that the scientific explanation is more plausible then I could accuse them of arguing from incredulity.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab, and have identified testable, falsifiable and reproducible mechanisms for abiogenesis and useful definitions of life. Theists on the other hand have no definitions, no hypotheses, have identified no mechanisms or processes, and have not yet recreated in lab conditions a god, a prayer that affects the outside world, telepathy or telekinesis.

Yet you still believe this but not that thunder is created by Thor or anything understood by science that challenges your the one fairy tale that you do believe in. This shows that you are not impartial about accepting evidence even if it meets certain standards.

[Whateverist]

Theism is a form of superstition more than mental illness, though it does feature heavily in the mental illness of religious individuals, to my knowledge.

I've always thought this too, that believers suffering through mental illness so often feel that their suffering is God's punishment.  It can result in a lot of obsessive rumination on what one has done to disappoint God and so on.  But I doubt if it is universally an extra burden.  There might even be a few who get comfort from their belief at such times, but if there are we never hear from them here.

[I_am_not_mafia]

 Children are taught that the consequence to their actions are irrelevant because only a non-existent god can truly judge them [1.1].

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.

They are not taught to think through the morality of their actions but to accept the morality without question that some person wearing a pointy hat gives them.  They are conditioned to obey authority and to have faith rather than to ask why. [1.2] 

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.

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.

This means that they do not have to accept the responsibility of their actions because they were only following orders, which ultimately came from their god and are not to be questioned. [1.3] 

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.

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.

The child grows up dependent upon a system that tells them how to act, think, believe and what to value or hate. [1.4]

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 ...

Their life is not their own but is instead owned by a church that can control them like some bot in a network to be deployed to exercise power. [1.5]

1.5 - Again, you make things up to support your silly conclusion. Show us where the Bible teaches anything other than personal responsibility. 

Because in politics numbers count. And when mobilised, as a church can do, this equates to real political power.

I shall counter paragraph 2 later to avoid an impenetrable wall of text. But for now ...

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,

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference between superstition and theism as defined by sociologists is more meaningful and less a term of art than the difference between theism and delusion as defined by psychologists.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it matters quite a bit, if someone is trying to make it sound like religion is a primary cause for wars.

Yours seems to be a different question, of which I think that the specification of religious  may be a bit vague.

Actually i never said primary

No specification of religious is not vague at all in the context of this discussion i mean Christian.

Thank you for the correction.  I think my response may have been based more off of what Neo said than yourself.

Also thanks for the clarification.  I had suspected that you where referring more to what you see as Christian tradition, rather than just religions in general.  I can see where an argument can be made for such; in that light.  There are also arguments, that can be made against such strict pacifism as well.  I for one, do not believe that a Christian should not serve in the military. 

(Note:  thanks for a quick and simple correction/clarification   it's refreshing to have such in discussion).