Are religious people trapped in their childhood?

rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 123
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Are religious people trapped in their childhood?

Almost everyone has an inner child I guess.

But it seems that with religious people, it is worse. I grew up in a religious family, and they are all like children. I may be wrong, since I am not a psychologist.

God himself is nothing but an imaginary friend. The fear of God and punishment is compatible with parents punishing them for doing bad things as kids. Their entire belief system is like  a fairy tale for little boys yet they don't see the violations of logic in their religion. They seem to lack the ability to differentiate fact from fiction. The religious person's reaction to an atheist is very similar to that of a child who has been told Santa Claus is not real.

The entire obsession with sex that you see with most religious people seems to be something off a childhood phase as well. They seem to perceive sex as an aberration, which is something you'd expect from a 9 year old who kmows all about it.

The religious male seems to dislike women, which is compatible with a 9 or 10 year old dislike of little girls. The same thing applies to religious females with the opposite sex.

God is like a father-figure who punishes them for almost anything, even bad thoughts. But he can also reward them. Satan is like a boogey-man hiding in their closet.

The most religious people don't even work. Priests, pastors. They live off other people while thinking they make money through God.

In the worst case-scenario, the religious person seems attracted to children (Mohammad, Lewis Carroll, thousands of priests). Most pedophiles are very childish yet sociopathic. This does not mean that all religious people are pedophiles, or that all childish people are pedophiles and so on. But there may be a connection.

 

 

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
despite the fact that this

despite the fact that this is all grossly generalized, i specifically find your statement that most religious people do not work problematic. first of all, you cannot say that clergy make up the majority of religious people. second of all, the idea that clergy do not "work" is subjective. it depends on your idea of "work." if you think "work" is exclusively industrial, agricultural, or otherwise manual, than the majority of the western world does not work. if "work" includes services, the first thing a service needs is a demand for it. if clergy--be they catholic or protestant or even televangelists--perform a service that people are willing to pay them for, who are you to say they don't work? last i checked, the government does not recognize them as unemployed. if i think chiropractic, for example, is quackery, i can just as easily say chiropractors don't work. also, i would guess the majority of low church protestant, congregationalist ministers (i.e. those hired by individual churches rather than appointed by a central authority) in the US are part-time, meaning they also have what i suppose you might call a "real job."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 123
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 I know it is generalizing.

 I know it is generalizing. It is based mostly on what members of my catholic family, and many catholics and evangelicals say.

Of course this assumption wouldn't cover nominal religious people. Nor would it cover narcissistic people who live to use religion to control others, such as, let's say, Glenn Beck.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote:Almost

rpcarnell wrote:

Almost everyone has an inner child I guess.

But it seems that with religious people, it is worse. I grew up in a religious family, and they are all like children. I may be wrong, since I am not a psychologist.

God himself is nothing but an imaginary friend. The fear of God and punishment is compatible with parents punishing them for doing bad things as kids. Their entire belief system is like  a fairy tale for little boys yet they don't see the violations of logic in their religion. They seem to lack the ability to differentiate fact from fiction. The religious person's reaction to an atheist is very similar to that of a child who has been told Santa Claus is not real.

The entire obsession with sex that you see with most religious people seems to be something off a childhood phase as well. They seem to perceive sex as an aberration, which is something you'd expect from a 9 year old who kmows all about it.

The religious male seems to dislike women, which is compatible with a 9 or 10 year old dislike of little girls. The same thing applies to religious females with the opposite sex.

God is like a father-figure who punishes them for almost anything, even bad thoughts. But he can also reward them. Satan is like a boogey-man hiding in their closet.

The most religious people don't even work. Priests, pastors. They live off other people while thinking they make money through God.

In the worst case-scenario, the religious person seems attracted to children (Mohammad, Lewis Carroll, thousands of priests). Most pedophiles are very childish yet sociopathic. This does not mean that all religious people are pedophiles, or that all childish people are pedophiles and so on. But there may be a connection.

 

 

 

 

True, we all have remnants of our childhood which seem to be permenant. Being up there in years one's childhood becomes more important as a memory and longing fora return.

Religious floks- Well, that may be but they are a product of their invironmnent the same as non religious people. I've seen that on occasions religious ones are a victim of thier religion. I don't think they may be any more like children then others. The world promote childishness  (note politicians) on the over-all so you may be being a bit quick on that judgement becasue if you're an Atheist you may be of a higher degree of criticisim. Throughout life one's childhood remainsa hithching post for many things.

God is an imaginary friend- true. What you need to undertstand here is---in the beginning man was created in the image and likeness of the creator. BUT, over time and terrible misunderstanding of the phenomenon of "God" ---the floks in charge turned it around and promote God in "their"own image and likeness. There's two sides to the deal. We have agood side and a bad side---it's the bad side that dominates societies and it what civilizations rely on . Enmity is the first prerequisite to civil society. So--religions follow that concept also--because the clergy are also members of civil societies--and--believe more in civilzation than their religions. They can differentiate from fiction-but- religious belief holds more power over them then fact, which also means that the clergy hold more power over their followers then science. Another problem is- they have a magic friend that can do anything so anything (with training) can be true, if the clergy say so.

Obsession with sex- True. I've seen plenty of floks that go to church to meet partners. Take into account though, that they are taught that man is here for enjoyment, so this religious belief will cause them to pursue pleasure. It's matter of how they interpret life. I once got into a conversation disputing that claim but the fellow insisted (becasue he was one that joined a church to scope over the ladies). I asked --If God created us to have sexual pleasures then -who are the squirrels. If any system promotes the pursuit of pleasues--that's what it will end up becomeing. If you want an example of a pursuit of pleasue go to PBS (Public TV System) and check out the channels on the pursuit of pleasure eating - Food) Civilizations also teach/pro9mote the pursuit of pleasue. There's not much difference , if any, between religions and civilizations. One becomes what their invironment is.

Religious males seem to dislike women- Again true. Thats from the afore mentioned pleasurable pursuits. They want the genitals not the brains. And, being taught that the male is dominant. But, also in todays women it can very well be the same for them. Domination originates from ones "bad side" so---hence the problem.

Gos id like a father figue--True again- They have a religion that can blame someone else for their short comings. It's Gods fault, only God knows (they don,t)(they're supposed to knwow) and if it's not their idea of God then it's the Devel's fault.  God is nothing more then good VS evil, and is am matter of both sides--so is everyone. There's no reason to have the God idea becasue it's people that are running this thing. Thats;' what their God is basically for, it's his fault not theirs, so they can come up with anything and if they can't explain it, God does unklnown things.

Most religious people don't even work-I take it you mean the clergy, and they don't do manual labor. --Well, welcome to the world. That's numba wun--how to live here without sweating in the hot sun. I'm guessing, 2/3rds of the people are bean counters and others that don't do the work. The ides id--to get the other guys to milk the cows and throw the shit out of the barn--but not me. It comes from way back in history when some guy was to lazy to take care of himself and conned others into working while he sat in the shade. He figues he could con others into labor while he did the thinking--thus--the first kings. So, noe the whole system relys on thisd arrangement. Thye peoblem is--they don't really want to do anything so more bean counters are required. Then we end up with more laborless people then laborers. That's where the stock markets come in. The "Kings" created a system (finacial) to make money from money. Clergy (religions) make a living by talking anf the grounds keeper mows the lawn. Such a system relys on dishonety (because the originators had to be dishonest to devise such a deal) and mistruths. They created a liars paradise for themselves and today no one recognizes it as such--it's become the norm. The clergy are in that catagory. It's a con-game that certain parts aren't a con anymore so it all looks real.

Attracted to children.- True, as recent history shows. One of my highschool classmates became a catholic priest and is accused of being a pedaphile. The first connection is, we are all still children, it hasn't gone away because we physically grew up. Most people (i'm guessing) don't relize how much of a child they realy are and don't recognise it. Theres a bid (big too) difference between childlike and childish. Also, children are easily taken advantage of because of their natural ingnorance and innocence of things.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote: I know it

rpcarnell wrote:

 I know it is generalizing. It is based mostly on what members of my catholic family, and many catholics and evangelicals say.

Of course this assumption wouldn't cover nominal religious people. Nor would it cover narcissistic people who live to use religion to control others, such as, let's say, Glenn Beck.

 

Exactly who does Glenn Beck control, and exactly how is he using his religion to do it?

I agree with iwbiek on the work point- promoting a religion is as much work as promoting any product. Religions don't grow large without a lot of skilled salesmen.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think most concepts of

I think most concepts of children, adults, and adolescent's are fundamentally flawed. The only thing that really changes is a person's ability to comprehend consequences and draw upon knowledge and experience.

Every adult has the ability to play and imagine. Only self control via fear of embarrassment holds them back.
Every child has the ability to be deadly serious and committed. Only lack of knowledge and experience prevent them from being more like adults.

There's really very little to separate a child from an adult beyond the physical changes and the acquisition of knowledge and experience.

Such physical changes don't mean anything when you get right down to it. The knowledge and experience is exceptionally different, but acquiring knowledge and experience doesn't mean much to being, merely to how you react to shit that happens.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3692
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote:But it seems

rpcarnell wrote:

But it seems that with religious people, it is worse. I grew up in a religious family, and they are all like children. I may be wrong, since I am not a psychologist.

There are several groups in Christian churches of America. Children that have no choice. Teens that may go because of pier pressure. Parents that go because the believe the marking of family values and then older people that go for social reasons and out of habit, they are too set in their ways to change. I think it tends to be about 50/50 mix between a childish mindset and old people set in their ways.

 

rpcarnell wrote:

The religious male seems to dislike women, which is compatible with a 9 or 10 year old dislike of little girls. The same thing applies to religious females with the opposite sex.

What males really resent are the rules of feminized christianity. They require total repression of male sexuality(you can't even look at another woman), total submission of the male to the female. This talk of chuch being a patriarchy is complete BS. The Christian church in the USA is way more popular with women.

What these churches are in reality are high priced brothels(sex for a man's soul). That was ultimatly why I left(the price seemed a bit high). The sexual tension and resentment you see is because the women have such a high price and the men are reluctant to pay it. Christian women are ridiculous, they set their price for sex really high(even when they are fat or unattractive) and then bitch about lack of quality men in their church.

I think Islam promotes a rape culture(women are men's propety) while western Chistianity promotes a high priced(men are only to serve women's needs) brothel culture.

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15473
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:despite the

iwbiek wrote:
despite the fact that this is all grossly generalized, i specifically find your statement that most religious people do not work problematic. first of all, you cannot say that clergy make up the majority of religious people. second of all, the idea that clergy do not "work" is subjective. it depends on your idea of "work." if you think "work" is exclusively industrial, agricultural, or otherwise manual, than the majority of the western world does not work. if "work" includes services, the first thing a service needs is a demand for it. if clergy--be they catholic or protestant or even televangelists--perform a service that people are willing to pay them for, who are you to say they don't work? last i checked, the government does not recognize them as unemployed. if i think chiropractic, for example, is quackery, i can just as easily say chiropractors don't work. also, i would guess the majority of low church protestant, congregationalist ministers (i.e. those hired by individual churches rather than appointed by a central authority) in the US are part-time, meaning they also have what i suppose you might call a "real job."

Not grossly generalized, aptly genreralized, but idiots like you think that religion cannot be scientifically explained as a natural flaw in human perceptions. You are the moron you thinks that Santa and religion are different, and there is no difference, it is still dungeons and dragons for adults.

And of course you focus on Christianity, Buddhism is no different, started in the same age of ignorance of all the worlds religions, and no religion was ever requried outside a stupid placebo.

Religion is the false perception of the covered olives at the Holloween party mistaken for eyballs. Religion is the butterfly in the inkblot. In scientific terms, Dawkins discribes the delusion as "The moth mistaking the lightbulb for moonlight".

At best it is a placebo, a suggar pill, a mental nipple. 

Complecated crap is still crap. Kaliedeoscopes are not tellescopes no matter how much the user would falsely believe them to  be such.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
despite the fact that this is all grossly generalized, i specifically find your statement that most religious people do not work problematic. first of all, you cannot say that clergy make up the majority of religious people. second of all, the idea that clergy do not "work" is subjective. it depends on your idea of "work." if you think "work" is exclusively industrial, agricultural, or otherwise manual, than the majority of the western world does not work. if "work" includes services, the first thing a service needs is a demand for it. if clergy--be they catholic or protestant or even televangelists--perform a service that people are willing to pay them for, who are you to say they don't work? last i checked, the government does not recognize them as unemployed. if i think chiropractic, for example, is quackery, i can just as easily say chiropractors don't work. also, i would guess the majority of low church protestant, congregationalist ministers (i.e. those hired by individual churches rather than appointed by a central authority) in the US are part-time, meaning they also have what i suppose you might call a "real job."

Not grossly generalized, aptly genreralized, but idiots like you think that religion cannot be scientifically explained as a natural flaw in human perceptions. You are the moron you thinks that Santa and religion are different, and there is no difference, it is still dungeons and dragons for adults.

And of course you focus on Christianity, Buddhism is no different, started in the same age of ignorance of all the worlds religions, and no religion was ever requried outside a stupid placebo.

Religion is the false perception of the covered olives at the Holloween party mistaken for eyballs. Religion is the butterfly in the inkblot. In scientific terms, Dawkins discribes the delusion as "The moth mistaking the lightbulb for moonlight".

At best it is a placebo, a suggar pill, a mental nipple. 

Complecated crap is still crap. Kaliedeoscopes are not tellescopes no matter how much the user would falsely believe them to  be such.

Meet an atheist trapped in childhood.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X