Religous people are literally "immature" (not a flame)

Great Debates
1

In the GQ board, Priceguy wrote:

quote:

Originally posted by mrfoi
Although, I could dispute your criteria for my “grow up” remark. Since to believe in mythology is intellectually immature and fairy tale in nature.

“Says who? There are many posters here who believe in what you would call “mythology”, and it isn’t your place to judge them as intellectually immature. Once again, take such remarks to the BBQ Pit.” Priceguy

Priceguy, If you’ll read my remarks, you’ll see that I understand the structure of the forum now. I was making a joke to that effect.

But as with all jokes, there is an element of truth. And yes, it is my place to judge them. As someone who occupies the planet with them, I have every right to judge others’ behavior.

Children believe in fairy tales as if they were real, and the holdover into adulthood is, for many people, gods like the christian god, the muslim god, etc.

My point is that a mature person discards childhood fantasies and deals with reality. At a certain age, children become aware that Santa Claus does not really exist, and is a myth perpetrated in good fun to celebrate a holiday. At some point, they also realize there is no proof for any gods or other mythological figures like jesus to exits, but most sublimate this realization so they can fit into society more easily. Or they require the comfort such self-delusion provides. (Which I do not begrudge them. Life is endless pain and much comfort is required. But comfort aside, it is intellectually weak to deny the logic of a situation.)

Ergo, anyone who still believes in the childhood fantasy of a big man in the sky watching you has refused to let go of the childhood beliefs. A rational adult knows full well that there is no proof for any mythology like christianity.

This does not invalidate their life and most are capable of living perfectly sane lives (other than thinking there’s a man in the sky.)

My own particular childhood fantasy (that I still cling to) is that people are inherently good, even though the news every day provides ample proof to the contrary.

Religion is like an appendix to humanity. At one point in our evolution, the appendix served a function. But now it is not only useless, but may burst and kill you.

The dictionary defines mythology as: “A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.”

This describes the Bible and the Qoran perfectly, eh? Also Superman comic books, The Lord of the Rings, and many other fine examples of fiction like the aforementioned Bible and Koran.

In summary, my playful admonition to those who believe in mythology to “grow up” is exactly that. Whenever you see me espousing my childish belief that people are inherently good, feel free to admonish me to “grow up” as well.

Feel free to remind me that people are not so good after all. People do terrible things every day, like:

  • blow up school buses in Israel, killing children.

  • blow up cars in Northern Ireland, killing children

  • steal Palestinian’s land and claim it for their own because of “divine right”

  • beat a man to death in Malawi last week because they thought he was a vampire ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021224/ap_on_re_af/malawi_vampire_fears_3 )

  • priests have sex with little boys. The Catholic church keeps hiding it (and then having to VOTE on whether or not it’s wrong!)

Oh, and if you’ll notice: every single one of those horrible deeds is committed in the name of religion and mythology. (“Little Timmy, God wants me to have sex with you. If you tell, God will punish you!”)

Ain’t religion wonderful?

Until humanity “grows up” and abandons the primitive mythology of its dark and violent past, we can never embrace reason and love as our standard of living. Faith is a lie, a delusion and leads only to horror. Reason is our only tool, our only salvation that can lead us to peace.

The difference between Faith and Reason:

Reason is what allows man to build airplanes.

Faith is what makes him fly them into the World Trade Center.

  • D.W.
2

Couple of points:

First, as you say yourself, you have your own myth that you cling to. Are you any different from “religious people”? Should your thesis actually be that those who cling to myths are immature, whether religious or non-religious? And is there anybody who doesn’t cling to some myth?

More substantially, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of myth. In a literal sense, a myth may be wholly true, partly true or wholly untrue. That is not important. The point about a myth is that it expresses something beyond the literal story, and that something may be true, or valid, or useful, regardless of whether the literal story is true or not.

You could, of course, argue that it is immature uncritically to accept the literal truth of all religious myths, but not all religious believers do this - in fact most don’t.

Oh, and one minor point. Your assertion that clerical child sex abuse is “committed in the name of religion and mythology” is, I suggest, a myth, in the sense that the literal account you give is probably not generally true of clerical sexual abuse. What is your evidence that most clerical abusers use the authority of religion to perpetrate their crimes?

Similarly, your suggestion that violence in Northern Ireland is perpetrated in the name of religion is, quite simply, generally not true. In the name of mythology, certainly, if we regard nationalism and unionism (and indeed all political beliefs) as resting in part on mythology, which I think is fair enough.

3

It’s customary to include a link to the thread in question, Mrfoi, so the rest of us can see for ourselves what everybody said.

It’s the GQ The history of Christian God’s omni hat-trick

4

I must respectfully disagree. I know many fully mature people. Some are atheist, some agnostic, most religious of varying degrees. Do I know immature adults in all categories? Yup.

5

I disagree on the grounds that I feel I have personally received sufficient proof that there really IS a being substantially similar to the Christian God. For me, denial would be the delusion.

6

I hasten to add (realising that this will look like backpedalling or weaseling) that the proof I have reviewed is not available for examination by third parties; I fully acknowledge that my ‘reality’ does indeed appear nothing more than delusion to an outside observer and on this occasion I will refrain from attempting to explain by drawing analogies.

7

What is your “sufficient proof,” [b[Mangetout**? If you have indeed recieved proof, then you are the first person in history to do so.

8

Well, then, this does not constitute “proof” at all. What do you say to Hindus who have recieved “proof” of the existence of Krishna or Vishnu? Are they just self-deluded? Is only a Christian experience valid.

9

This strikes me as an unsubstantiated remark, especially since many people have become Christians after extensively investigating its historical claims.

Moreover, even if these Christians are in error, that does not justify dismissing their beliefs are mere “fairy tales.” It simply means that they are mistaken – or do you honestly claim to hold no mistaken beliefs yourself?

And finally, such a broad, poorly researched and utterly unsubstantiated swipe strikes me as rather immature in itself.

10

The OP is absolutely correct. There will be many people who will respond like mangetout saying that they have real evidence that there is a god, thus denial would be the delusion. No offense (although there will be), but these people are simply schizophrenics. Having a personal relationship with (a) god is the only acceptable form of schizophrenia. Have a relationship with an imaginary guy named bob and you’ll be locked up in a mental institution and pumped full of meds; however, name him jesus or mohammed and society will treat you 180 degrees differently - you’ll be a great, pious, moral (and still schizophrenic) person. Schizophrenia is a much more common mental disorder than most people think, and it isn’t always as debilitating/powerful as the “A Beautiful Mind” level of schizophrenia. A lot of the time it can be a simple defense mechanism. I believe that’s the case with most, if not all, of these “I know God” religious people. Life sucks (yep, sure does) and “Knowing” an imaginary (and socially acceptable) being helps them cope with it. Hey, if it helps make life more bearable, go for it. Just don’t try to spread your mental disorder.

Anyway, flame away, and merry xmas :slight_smile:

11

Cite? What historical claims do you believe can be verified through investigation?

12

Children do not grow up after they learn fairy tales are fake. They just learn that their parents think that it is ok to lie sometimes if they haven’t learned that already. Knowing certain things does not make you mature.

In fact I’d say that the children who become atheists after learning that Santa isin’t real are immature(or at least unscientific). Instead of being able to distinguish the difference between fairy tale and religion they just decide that they are the same.

13

**Well, my dictionary defines ‘proof’ as ‘The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true’, so yes, it does constitute proof.

If you’re expecting me to dig my heels in and assert that my way is the only way, that my experience is the only valid one, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. I can no more examine the personal experiences of your hypothetical Hindu than you can examine mine.

14

Well, not surprisingly, my initial reaction to your post certainly included offense, but no matter; It is hardly a surprise that it theism is viewed as insanity from a point of view where it has been accepted as axiomatic that God doesn’t exist.

15

having a relationship with an imaginary being (until you show me a photograph of him, he’s imaginary) is schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a mental disease, and arguably a form of insanity (although that term is no longer in scientific use… psychosis would be a more modern term, at least for those whose religious beliefs prevent them from functioning normally in society). A --> B --> C. Sorry.

16

Well, you have not offered any evidence or argument which would compel anybody’s mind to accept your assertion. Proof is worthless unless it can be tested or examined by others.

But you did specify a Christian God in your first post.

Are you now backing off of that assertion?

BTW, since I haven’t actually answered the OP, while I personally believe that religion is fantasy, I am not ready to say that religious people are immature. I’ve know way too many people of faith who are extrordinarily grown-up, responsible and thoughtful. I’ve also known plenty of atheists who are childish, immature and irresponsible. maturity has nothing to do with believing or not believing in God.

17

Kalt, this is much too glib. There are billions of people in the world whose photographs you have never seen. Are they all imaginary?

More to the point, are you not assuming the conclusion for which you are arguing? On what basis do you say that a being who does not have a material presence (i.e. who cannot be photographed) cannot exist? You are starting from the assumption that an immaterial being cannot exist and, if you start from that point, it does follow that an immaterial being must be imaginary. You have, however, failed to establish that an immaterial being cannot exist. In fact, you haven’t even tried to establish that.

And have you a cite for your assertion that a relationship with an imaginary being is schizophrenia? Is this a generally accepted clinical definition?

18

An immaterial being, by definition*, is a being which cannot exist, since materiality (i.e. some physical substance or verifiable quality of being) is a necessary condition for existence. This does not have to be proved it is a factual predicate.

19

UDS you’re reading way too much in to my “take a picture” test. It’s just a practical way for a person who says they have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe to prove it. If they can prove it in any other empirical way, I’m more than open to looking at it. It doesn’t “HAVE” to be a photograph (which of course can be easily faked, i’d surely need more than just that anyway).

20

Good point. But, yes I am different in that my myth is based on observable good behavior in myself and others. Since it is impossible to observe gods, my myth is based in reason. That is the difference.

No. I am using Reason as an ability more prevalent in adults than children. Chidren cannot reason that crossing the road will kill them until they learn it. Children cannot reason that the people on tv are not real until they grow and learn otherwise. A myth based on reason is therefore more mature.

I am using this definition: “A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.”

Example: “Thou shalt not kill” is part of christian mythology. That doesn’t invalidate it as a good idea, however. Just because mythology contains good ideas is no reason to literally belive in it, which is my initial point. The reverse is true: Just because communism holds that religion is evil (which I agree with), doesn’t mean communism is good (I think communism is bad.)

To accept the gods in the first place then discard other aspects of your chosen delusional system is irrelevant. Delusion is delusion.

[qoute] Oh, and one minor point. Your assertion that clerical child sex abuse is “committed in the name of religion and mythology” is, I suggest, a myth, in the sense that the literal account you give is probably not generally true of clerical sexual abuse. What is your evidence that most clerical abusers use the authority of religion to perpetrate their crimes?
[/quote]

Quite a few abuse victims told of priests using this rationale when abusing them. You keep arguing that “most” don’t or won’t do this. I am not talking quantity here, I am talking rationale and belief system. If there were no religion for people to surrender their free will to, then there would be no clerical sexual abuse.

No christianity=no priests=no priests abusing kids.

[quote}Similarly, your suggestion that violence in Northern Ireland is perpetrated in the name of religion is, quite simply, generally not true. In the name of mythology, certainly, if we regard nationalism and unionism (and indeed all political beliefs) as resting in part on mythology, which I think is fair enough. **[/QUOTE]

Uh, this is the most squishy of all your arguments. You clearly wish my statements were not true and your ability to ignore logic is typical of someone able to be religious. I refer you to any news report of N. Ireland and the “Catholics vs. Protestants” issue will be cited as the cause for strife.

BTW, Many times I have wished that I was able to ignore logic and be religious myself. It would save me a lot of thinking for myself. I could just follow someone else’s rules. A bliss!

If ever you doubt the evil power of religion, go to New York City and visit the site of the World Trade Center attack.