Theism is literally childish

[I_am_not_mafia]

"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.

What is a soul?

Once you try to define it I strongly suspect that your argument will be relying upon equivocation.

[Catholic_Lady]

Mathilda: 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 - 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.

By all means, continue to tell me more about "what I was taught to think."

You must believe we are all really shitty parents and had really shitty parents if you think we simply teach/were taught "don't do this because the bible says so," and that's it. That's called bigotry. Also, I was NEVER "taught" to use a "get out clause" for any of my moral decisions. That's ridiculous, but thanks for telling me what my parents taught me and what I believe and how I am and how I act.

Hey, how about you actually test your unflattering claim before making it and applying it to all of us? I'm serious, let's do this. Take something that is accepted as morally wrong in Christianity and ask ANY Christian here "hey, why is this particular action immoral?" And see if the answer is "because the bible says so." Go ahead. There are entire books written about moral theology which explains in detail why certain things are morally wrong. There are entire philosophy books on Natural Law. It is extremely important to teach a child the why behind morality. Let any Christian parent here tell you otherwise.

---

"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.

What is a soul?

Once you try to define it I strongly suspect that your argument will be relying upon equivocation.

The soul is what lives on after we die. You don't believe in souls, I get that. I'm not here to argue the existence of one, so quit with the deflection. My point is your claim about us being taught that "consequences of this life are irrelevant because only God can judge" is complete bullshit. But you knew that's what my point was.

[Brian37]

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.

By all means, continue to tell me more about "what I was taught to think."

You must believe we are all really shitty parents and had really shitty parents if you think we are simply teach/were taught "don't do this because the bible says so," and that's it. That's called bigotry. Also, I was NEVER "taught" to use a "get out clause" for any of my moral decisions. That's ridiculous, but thanks for telling me what my parents taught me and what I believe and how I am and how I act.

Hey, how about you actually test your unflattering claim before making it and applying it to all of us? I'm serious, let's do this. Take something that is accepted as morally wrong in Christianity and ask ANY Christian here "hey, why is this particular action immoral?" And see if the answer is "because the bible says so." Go ahead. There are entire books written about moral theology which explains in detail why certain things are morally wrong. There are entire philosophy books on Natural Law. It is extremely important to teach a child the why behind morality. Let any Christian parent here tell you otherwise.

CL NOBODY here is arguing that you truly believe morality comes from the bible and the Christian God. We accept that you truly think that and hold that position.

WHAT WE DOUBT is your perception of reality.

Muslims would claim that Allah is the source of morality and the Koran as well.

Jews would claim that Yahweh is the real source of human morality.

Buddhists would argue that Buddha would explain human morality.

What we argue is that human behavior, GOOD OR BAD, isn't a result of old holy writings of any label. It certainly is popular that most humans like believing in their respective clubs as being the patent holder of our species morality sure. But popularity does not constitute fact.

The reality of where human behaviors are coming from is as easy as understanding your own pets.

If you raise a dog in isolation and don't give it much social interaction from a young age with other animals or humans, it is far more likely to fear the unfamiliar. However, if you adapt a cat and dog as a kitten and puppy at the same time and socialize them with other animals and humans, they will see others as resources and good, and be far more likely to cooperate and show empathy.

Humans are no different. We evolved to be a social species, but because our species started out in scientific darkness long before written language, we evolved in fear and developed bad guesses to explain the world around us, and feared other tribes. We see the same social divisions in other primates too, different troops unfamiliar with each other are far more likely to fight.

We DON'T DOUBT that you hold the position that the bible explains morality, we are saying that is not where human behaviors are explained. There is no magic cosmic battle between a man in a rob vs a man with a pitchfork. There are only old books of mythology and old holy writings worldwide humans simply still wish explained reality.

No it isn't sexy or romantic. But if you can accept that Osiris and Horis and Isis don't explain human morality, then you should be able to scrutinize your own claims.

I SEE evolution as the reason we can do good and be good. But it is also the reason we can be very cruel too. I simply reject all the claims of antiquity as being a valid explanation to our species behaviors, good or bad.

Every religion can point to stories of compassion and kindness yes. That says to me, that humans, not the religion itself, but humans are doing it but unfortunately chalking it up to very bad gap answers.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What is a soul?

Once you try to define it I strongly suspect that your argument will be relying upon equivocation.

The soul is what lives on after we die. You don't believe in souls, I get that. I'm not here to argue the existence of one, so quit with the deflection. My point is your claim about us being taught that "consequences of this life are irrelevant because only God can judge" is complete bullshit. But you knew that's what my point was.

Right. So what exactly lives on after we die? Our consciousness?  Our identities and memories? Everything that makes us who we are as a person minus a corporeal body? If so then when you say:

"Only God can pass judgement" means only God can pass judgement on a person's soul. Meaning we can't condemn people to Hell.

... what you actually mean is that only your god can pass judgment based on who we are and send us to Hell.

And what criteria does he use to pass judgment? Our looks? Our wealth? Whether we chose the correct religion out of the many thousands that have ever existed? Or our moral decisions?

Regardless. When faced with the consequences of such judgment then anything that gets done on Earth is pretty small scale to the point of being irrelevant when compared to an eternity of happiness or agony.

[Catholic_Lady]

The soul is what lives on after we die. You don't believe in souls, I get that. I'm not here to argue the existence of one, so quit with the deflection. My point is your claim about us being taught that "consequences of this life are irrelevant because only God can judge" is complete bullshit. But you knew that's what my point was.

Right. So what exactly lives on after we die? Our consciousness?  Our identities and memories? Everything that makes us who we are as a person minus a corporeal body? If so then when you say:

"Only God can pass judgement" means only God can pass judgement on a person's soul. Meaning we can't condemn people to Hell.

... what you actually mean is that only your god can pass judgment based on who we are and send us to Hell.

And what criteria does he use to pass judgment? Our looks? Our wealth? Whether we chose the correct religion out of the many thousands that have ever existed? Or our moral decisions?

Regardless. When faced with the consequences of such judgment then anything that gets done on Earth is pretty small scale to the point of being irrelevant when compared to an eternity of happiness or agony.

Judgement I am allowed to make: Mathilda is clearly prejudice against people of faith. This prejudice is causing her to act obtuse on purpose, so that she can keep on thinking the worst of us despite all of us telling her that her assertions about us are false. The consequence is that I have lost respect for her, and I will start a thread asking the staff to explain exactly why this provocative thread of hers doesn't break the rules against wild generalizations on entire groups of people.   

Judgement I am not allowed to make: Mathilda is going to Hell. 

See the difference?  

Now I'll say it again:

YOU made the claim that theists (that includes me) were "taught that consequences of their actions  are irrelevant because only God can judge." I am sitting here, as a flesh and bone, real life theist, telling you that I was NOT taught what you are claiming I was taught. And I am explaining to you that me believing that God will decide who goes to Hell, does not in any way shape or form make me believe consequences of this life are irrelevant, or that we can't judge people in other ways besides the state of their souls.   

...And you are still sitting here arguing with me. 

Person A: you believe this and you were taught this
Person B: Um actually no, no I wasn't. And no, I don't. 
Person A: Yes you do!

[Brian37]

Right. So what exactly lives on after we die? Our consciousness?  Our identities and memories? Everything that makes us who we are as a person minus a corporeal body? If so then when you say:




... what you actually mean is that only your god can pass judgment based on who we are and send us to Hell.

And what criteria does he use to pass judgment? Our looks? Our wealth? Whether we chose the correct religion out of the many thousands that have ever existed? Or our moral decisions?

Regardless. When faced with the consequences of such judgment then anything that gets done on Earth is pretty small scale to the point of being irrelevant when compared to an eternity of happiness or agony.

Judgement I am allowed to make: Mathilda is clearly prejudice against people of faith. This prejudice is causing her to act obtuse on purpose, so that she can keep on thinking the worst of us despite all of us telling her that her assertions about us are false. The consequence is that I have lost respect for her, and I will start a thread asking the staff to explain exactly why this provocative thread of hers doesn't break the rules against wild generalizations on entire groups of people.   

Judgement I am not allowed to make: Mathilda is going to Hell. 

See the difference?  

Now I'll say it again:

YOU made the claim that theists (that includes me) were "taught that consequences of their actions  are irrelevant because only God can judge." I am sitting here, as a flesh and bone, real life theist, telling you that I was NOT taught what you are claiming I was taught. And I am explaining to you that me believing that God will decide who goes to Hell, does not in any way shape or form make me believe consequences of this life are irrelevant, or that we can't judge people in other ways besides the state of their souls.   

...And you are still sitting here arguing with me. 

Person A: you believe this and you were taught this
Person B: Um actually no, no I wasn't. And no, I don't. 
Person A: Yes you do!

CL you do know better than this, you have been here long enough to know what we object to is your logic, nothing more.

Skeptics, "You were sold the idea that a God exists"

Is not the same as, "We hate you personally"

But no, sorry, how you want the word "judgment" to be viewed, does not change the claims of antiquity. BACK THEN "judgment" was a trope in polytheism and monotheism. BACK THEN the gods or a god were the string pullers and humans tried to guess as to what their god/s wanted and feared judgment if they didn't do things right.

Now that concept of "judgment" reflects antiquity. BACK THEN life in both polytheism and monotheism depended far more on towing the line of the local tribal leaders. The ruling families were the judges so religion reflected the false notion of success being divine entitlement.

You are trying to change history. We are not arguing what you want it to be now, we are  telling you how people thought back then. "Judgment" in antiquity was something divine and humans would point to volcanos as having a god us it to punish them. Other societies like the Mayans would use human sacrifice to prevent their god/s from punishing them. Pele the Hawaiian fire Goddess was thought of as deity to be appeased or face her wrath too.

Yes we can judge the here and now and we do so? That still is not evidence for a Christian heaven or a Muslim heaven or a Jewish heaven. It is also not evidence for a Christian hell or Muslim hell. The Ancient Egyptians long before those three had their concepts of judgment in the afterlife. The religions of Abraham did were not the first to make those claims.

You were taught the idea of a soul, and you were taught that after you die you go to heaven or hell. i spent many Sundays in a Catholic Church growing up myself so don't claim to me that isn't what you were taught.

[KevinM1]

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.

But, here's my hangup: an actual father is there. You can actually talk to them, and they'll actually respond. Moreover, a parent's job is to prepare their child for independence, when they're an adult and on their own. In most cases, we outlive our parents. I don't see any flavor of Christianity preparing its followers for such a time. Quite the opposite, since heaven isn't about independence, but rather a (re?)joining.

Again, I freely admit that I don't get it. Never have, and likely never will. I don't grasp the appeal, let alone the logic. I don't hate theists; like I've said before, most of the closest people in my life are a believer of one stripe or another. But I don't think I'll ever truly be able to understand them. It just doesn't make any sense to me at the most fundamental level.

[I_am_not_mafia]

YOU made the claim that theists (that includes me) were "taught that consequences of their actions  are irrelevant because only God can judge." I am sitting here, as a flesh and bone, real life theist, telling you that I was NOT taught what you are claiming I was taught.

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.

After all, it is precisely for this reason that many christians manage to console themselves with how their life has turned out because they think there is a better one waiting for them. So you can't have it both ways. Either the actions and choices you have in this life are of utmost importance because this is the only life that we have, or they diminish in importance because there are far greater consequences ahead to consider.

To draw an analogy. It's important to be polite to random strangers, such as letting them jump ahead in the queue. But not if I have been taught that a great catastrophe is about to happen, that I have a family to protect and we're all trying to grab the last remaining items of food on the shelf. The information that we are given determines the importance that we assign to our actions.

[Brian37]

YOU made the claim that theists (that includes me) were "taught that consequences of their actions  are irrelevant because only God can judge." I am sitting here, as a flesh and bone, real life theist, telling you that I was NOT taught what you are claiming I was taught.

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.

After all, it is precisely for this reason that many christians manage to console themselves with how their life has turned out because they think there is a better one waiting for them. So you can't have it both ways. Either the actions and choices you have in this life are of utmost importance because this is the only life that we have, or they diminish in importance because there are far greater consequences ahead to consider.

To draw an analogy. It's important to be polite to random strangers, such as letting them jump ahead in the queue. But not if I have been taught that a great catastrophe is about to happen, that I have a family to protect and we're all trying to grab the last remaining items of food on the shelf. The information that we are given determines the importance that we assign to our actions.

Well to be fair, the concepts of Karma and reincarnation do the same thing. It makes this life less important too.

But that isn't a flaw in logic only Christians own. Our species worldwide mostly believes in some sort of magical forever. Humans have always had their mythology of behavior regulation regardless. 

The truth of the God of Abraham is that it was a lesser god under a head God in Canaanite polytheism as part of a divine family. It was elevated to the Hebrew monotheist Yahweh as a result of marketing. It was a political way of uniting the different tribes of polytheism. Christianity and Islam were simply further attempts to redefine this same character. 

But the same can be said as to why Buddhism got started. Depending on the sect or historian you ask, you'd get different stories as to when he lived and where he lived. But even with that, you notice all the stories are either in India and or close to India. You also realize Buddhism incorporates old tropes like Karma and reincarnation. A lot like the early Christians attached themselves to the Jewish Old Testament. 

Point is I agree she cannot define a "soul" nor prove that any afterlife reward or afterlife punishment exists. But those monotheism were not the first to make claims of "souls" or "spirits". Polytheism was making those claims long before those three existed.

[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.