Theism is literally childish

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

I personally see it as ways of characterising different aspects of the same phenomenon. I have in the past likened religious belief as a behaviour altering parasite, a parasitic super organism, a drug addiction, a trick the mind uses to fool itself, a psychological crutch, a prepackaged template & support network for those unable to function as adults, and a mental illness. No one single comparison, no matter how apt, truly captures both the phenomenon in all its guises and the environments in which it operates in. I am describing in this thread how religious indoctrinate infantilises in very specific ways those receptive to it, but this is a description of how it operates rather than what it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's working as intended, in that regard, to increase cultural commonality by deference to a filial authority.  The end result is supposed to be cohesion, and it works until it doesn't.  

Unfortunately, even when it works, there are side effects.  The minds of those indoctrinated are palpably stunted by the process, but only insomuch as we now see those subjects it's coopts as indicators of maturity.  When people only lived to be 35, tops...speed of conformity was more important than a meaningful understanding. This expressed itself then (and now) as a fundamental difference between the laity and the priestly caste.

The shaman, or any mature adult..really, would always have a host of better reason for why "thou shalt not kill" than "because the great spirit said so" - the former is simply more important than the latter in light of the fact that we are capable of murder long before we understand it's consequences, and always have been. It makes sense to leverage predictable human deference in those cases..and particularly when group numbers are low and conflict (intra and extra) is a credible threat. The impulse and the formation of a system that leverages that impulse cannot be understood apart from the setting of it;s earliest representatives. Ourselves, no longer living our lives in that way, in that environment..might find it inexplicable today, but that;s only because of our privileged place in history. An aversion to the lesser of two evils when one of them is no longer necessary or even relevant. Why would I actively stunt my childs maturity without compulsion?

The answer for most..today, is the compulsion of tradition..and that tradition has been fetishized. Like so many things became divorced from their underpinnings long ago..and not at all unlike the ceremonial swords and spurs that modern cav units wear. The ceremonial dress of today's cav units wouldn't even have made sense on their ancestral battlefields. Similarly, encouraging divisive, delusional and paranoic beliefs and behavior in children was not the aim or the conceptualization of theism then, and would not have been a good idea then. It was a list of taboos within a family. It's since -become- a taboo between families. It stunts us in all the wrong ways, today. In the begining, so to speak, the payoffs for theism were huge and the cost negligible. The situation has since changed, and changed so meaningfully that there is no payout, and the cost has become immense. It would not have come as a surprise, in the grey area between modernity and history, to find that the most theistic societies were more cohesive than their prehistoric counterparts (and so more successful). One only has to read the news to see that this is no longer the case. That gods have been fetishized beyond the point of utility and deeply into useless and harmful ceremony....and all that remains is the childish response of the stunted.

[John V]

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.

Hardly. One of my arguments against abiogenesis is that we've never observed it. We have observed thunder and lightning.

Another is that we don't have a solid mechanical explanation for abiogenesis. The existence of multiple competing hypotheses is proof of that. Yet, we do have a solid generally accepted explanation for thunder and lightning, as you've shown.

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.

I said that the world itself is a continual failing experiment for abiogenesis. The world itself is a continuing successful experiment regarding thunder.

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.

You say that I reject plausibility but also embrace plausibility in the same sentence.

As I reject your notion of plausibility until you can tell me how to measure it, it's incorrect to say i find any concepts "just as plausible," as I don't apply your plausibility concept to them at all.

Plausible is just a weasel word in this context.

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.

Yes, and whenever you note that intelligent designers can create things, you're in no way helping your case. It's amusing that you continue to do so.

Using your very same arguments I could say that the static electricity from a Van de Graaf generator is not the same as lightning.

Let's hear it.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab,

There you go again.

and have identified testable, falsifiable and reproducible mechanisms for abiogenesis and useful definitions of life.

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

[Brian37]

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.

Hardly. One of my arguments against abiogenesis is that we've never observed it. We have observed thunder and lightning.

Another is that we don't have a solid mechanical explanation for abiogenesis. The existence of multiple competing hypotheses is proof of that. Yet, we do have a solid generally accepted explanation for thunder and lightning, as you've shown.

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.

I said that the world itself is a continual failing experiment for abiogenesis. The world itself is a continuing successful experiment regarding thunder.

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.

You say that I reject plausibility but also embrace plausibility in the same sentence.

As I reject your notion of plausibility until you can tell me how to measure it, it's incorrect to say i find any concepts "just as plausible," as I don't apply your plausibility concept to them at all.

Plausible is just a weasel word in this context.

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.

Yes, and whenever you note that intelligent designers can create things, you're in no way helping your case. It's amusing that you continue to do so.

Using your very same arguments I could say that the static electricity from a Van de Graaf generator is not the same as lightning.

Let's hear it.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab,

There you go again.

and have identified testable, falsifiable and reproducible mechanisms for abiogenesis and useful definitions of life.

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

The great thing about scientific method is that it isn't there to coddle your insecurities or superstitions.

This argument is old, and garbage.

Amino acids make up DNA and RNA PERIOD! 

You not liking the fact Darwin uncovered what was really going on and DNA later backed up what he started, well TOUGH!

And as I have said many times, Christians are NOT the only religion with members, whom, when they cannot debunk science, try to use science to get it to point to their old mythology. Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists do it too.

Don't believe other religions do this?

Ok, google the following.

"Jewish Science"
"Hindu Science"
"Muslim Science"
"Buddhist Science"

Do that, and YOU WILL find either websites attacking science or trying to use science to point to their clubs.

EVOLUTION is not an opinion it is fact, just like the science of flight that explains lift that allows airplanes to fly.

We don't care what you don't like about evolution. It is fact and it does not require your bible, or a Koran or Torah or Vedas or Buddha to understand and accept.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

No, we don't "actually literally" hear voices in our head. When we say we have a relationship with God we mean that we pray to God, we try to learn about Him particularly through the life and teachings of Jesus, and we try to live by His principles.

I wouldn't describe it as a master servant relationship. We think of Him as our Father.

[Brian37]

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.

No, we don't "actually literally" hear voices in our head. When we say we have a relationship with God we mean that we pray to God, we try to learn about Him particularly through the life and teachings of Jesus, and we try to live by His principles.

I wouldn't describe it as a master servant relationship. We think of Him as our Father.

So? And other people pray to Allah, other people pray to Vishnu and other people pray to Buddha.

Humans used to pray to Ra, others prayed to Apollo and Zues. And?

[Catholic_Lady]

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

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).

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.

"Only God can pass judgement" means only God can pass judgement on a person's soul. Meaning we can't condemn people to Hell. We can't say "Sussie who died last night went to Hell," because we cannot judge the state of her soul. NO WHERE in all my lifetime as a Christian, being raised by Christian parents, going to church, and going to Catholic school, was I EVER taught that consequences of this life are "irrelevant." That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say about all of us and our parents and our faith.

[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.

"Only God can pass judgement" means only God can pass judgement on a person's soul. Meaning we can't condemn people to Hell. We can't say "Sussie who died last night went to Hell," because we cannot judge the state of her soul. NO WHERE in all my lifetime as a Christian, being raised by Christian parents, going to church, and going to Catholic school, was I EVER taught that consequences of this life are "irrelevant." That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say about all of us and our parents and our faith.

The religious trope of "judgment" is not original to Christianity not even the Hebrews. Prior polytheism such as the Ancient Egyptians had their ideas of judgment long before the monotheism of Abraham existed.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Hardly. One of my arguments against abiogenesis is that we've never observed it. We have observed thunder and lightning.

And we have observed life. But we have never observed the small ice particles swarming around in a cloud causing a build-up of static electricity.

Another is that we don't have a solid mechanical explanation for abiogenesis. The existence of multiple competing hypotheses is proof of that. Yet, we do have a solid generally accepted explanation for thunder and lightning, as you've shown.

So until we have a single explanation then absolute every explanation is equally valid using your logic.

The Thor explanation must still be valid then using your argument because there are Many Things We Don't Know About Lightning

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.

I said that the world itself is a continual failing experiment for abiogenesis. The world itself is a continuing successful experiment regarding thunder.

Already explained.

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.

Yes, and whenever you note that intelligent designers can create things, you're in no way helping your case. It's amusing that you continue to do so.

The concept of Intelligent design has no explanatory power. How does it work? Again it's a christian belief that is not meant to be explained. A way of sweeping problems under the carpet.

I can take the process of evolution, simulate it on a computer and actually use it. It is quite easy for me to evolve something useful that will take me months to figure out. I can't get a computer to intelligently design it for me.

If you assert that intelligent design exists then you need to define how you propose it works.

What you don't understand is that if we have an accurate understanding of how the real world works then we can use that understanding for practical purposes. The modern world is testament to the effectiveness of the scientific method for investigating reality. Your god beliefs have no explanatory power and no practical purpose. I cannot take an understanding of the bible and make predictions based on it for example or use it to build something practical. The same goes for the flawed concept of intelligent design.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab,

There you go again.

Links provided in the post that you are replying to but you deliberately snipped them out.

[Brian37]

"Punishment reward" in the afterlife has existed in the earliest polytheism in written religion. Neither Jews or Christians or Muslims invented that trope.

Prior polytheism far older WORLDWIDE had their own ideas of reward in utopias after death, and underworld punishments if you did bad in life. "Hell" is simply another human invention as a myth trying to explain punishment. It merely has different details.

Even with Hinduism and Buddhism, the watered down version of reward/punishment in the next life are described with words like "Karma" and "reincarnation".

But all of that is really nothing but humans attempt at explaining how human behavior is regulated, but unfortunately done in the form of mythology and superstition.

The good news is there is no hell to burn in, just like you wont become a cockroach in the next life because some other person doesn't like you. This is the only life humans get. Our behaviors are best explained with the science of psychology, psychiatry, evolution, and neurology.