Last things first

 

Criticism of what exactly?  You're post is winding and blatantly baited with various wordplays to imply that other world views are either degenerate or non-virtuous but I'll leave others to take that bait.

 

You only make one real claim here and it is this:

Reference please?  Your entire post hinges on this being accurate.  If it's not accurate then it's either conjecture or trolling on your part and therefore not worth anyone's time.  If on the other hand you can provide stats for these 'stages' (without tainted commentary on validity of belief) then we can talk.

 

M

 

It was in an article somewhere. I have to look it up but I don't think I can find it. Of course, you won't believe me since I'm a theist and theists are dumb liars and evil people in general and you are Mr. White Hat Cowboy riding off into the sun to crush the evil Biblethumpers. (At least, that's what I expect based on my experiences here thus far.)

When I'm in my thirties, I'll accept that the outermost layer of our atmosphere has the solidity of a cast metal mirror, like Job did, and know I have moral fiber. I'll also share my jello with my friend Presuppositionalist at the psyche ward.

You don't really deserve intelligent criticisms, seeing as you are just making shit up. Just because you write it doesn't mean it is true.

I wasn't raised in the modern USA, I'm in Australia, but I shall try to fit my life into your stages:

1: <16 yrs

Raised in non-religious family. Told to learn about religion and make up my own mind. Went to church with very religious grandparents, went on bible camps with friends. Realized that religion is very silly and doesn't make any sense. Possibly agnostic on the whole god issue, but definately not in the form of any known religion.

2: 16 to 20 years

Pretty much the same, don't think I thought about it that much. Each to their own.

3: 20 to 30 years

Quite firm in the view that religion is silly and very religious people are mad. Aware of the problems that religion has caused, but didn't care too much.

4: 30 years till present.

Read the God Delusion last year because my wife bought it. Became more actually aware of the extent of religion and the damage it is doing. Got angry. Joined the RRS. Started reading the bible (still going in fits and starts, but have already realized how insane it is), can't believe people actually believe that shit!!! Calmed down.

Now a happy, healthy, balanced atheist.

Given that you claim that those who have beliefs other than yours are intellectually and morally deficient, you deserve any criticism you get.

Don't most folks give up their imaginary friends in their preschool years?

I actually believed until I was 16 and then considered myself agnostic. I was 31 when I realized I was an atheist. I'm 34 now and still realize relgion is bullshit.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you.......    Credulity.

Particularly since there are people here skilled in dissecting and analyzing research methods...

And this rationalization is all I need to continue believing.  After all, atheists are dumb liars and evil people in general and theists are Mr. White Hat Cowboys riding off into the sun to crush the evil nonbelievers.

 

That was not my life. I've always been a Christian.

Please show me the stats, because I know you don't have them.

Correction: I counter your anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence:

Stage 1.0: Childhood. Age 0 to approx 5-6 years.

Child believes pretty much everything he is told. He has simply not gained enough independent intelligence to determine what is truth and what is deception. By the end of this stage, he starts to have doubts. Sometimes people lie. Santa for example seems somehow strange, but the child can't quite put his finger on why.

Stage 1.1: Age of Reason. Age 5-6 to approx 9 years.

The child passes through the 'age of reason', and begins to question things. Everything in fact. Santa was clearly a deception. The child figured it out on his own when it became apparent that his parents were the ones behind it all. Tooth Fairy, Bogeyman, God, ET the Extraterrestrial, and all those other imaginary creatures seem to fall in the same category of things that people make up to entertain themselves. Strangely, some people seem to hold on to these beliefs, but the child can't figure out why.

Stage 1.2: Age of Enlightenment. Age 9 to approx 11 years.

Child begins to think independently and to hold his own opinions. He reads stories from Greek mythology, of Jason and the Argonauts, of Heracles, of Zeus and Prometheus. That Prometheus guy is pretty cool! His name means 'forethought', and he stole fire from the gods so that he could enlighten humankind. For some reason, Zeus got mad and punished him for it. That Zeus guy is an asshole. Fun stories. But the child sees that other kids have their own mythologies, such as this story of some guy named Jesus. What's up with that? Hey guys! Why do you believe this Jesus guy is real? He's just a story like Jason or Heracles, or Santa. What?! No, I'm not a devil worshiper? Where the hell did that come from? These 'true believers' are assholes.

Stage 1.3: Age of Angst. Age 12 -16.

Child begins to realize that something is seriously fucked up. Why do all these people believe all these crazy things? Why do they fight wars over what amounts to an opinion held as a sacred truth? This can't be right. Don't they see that we have come so far from mystical mythology with logic, reason, and science? Don't they see that their comforting stories are just stories? I guess not. Well, let them do their fucked up shit, I'm going to learn as much as I can so I can break out of this crazy system.

WTF? No, your anecdote is just another example of the fucked up comfort-blanket war-spawning religious bullshit. Here's a better anecdote (since I know you don't have any real stats to back up your silly claims):

Stage 2.0: Age of Discovery. Age 16-18.

The individual is way past 'questioning religion'. It is already clear that religion is some throwback to an ancient time. But if religion is false, what is true? Let's look at some of that science in more detail. WOW! This is incredible stuff! And it's backed up by evidence, and you can try it out for yourself, and it all works. And what's even better is that it all fits together. Whereas faith causes disagreement and division, evidence causes agreement and convergence. The individual discovers that by using science and reason, he can actually make real changes in the world around him. That's far more impressive than the wishful thinking of prayer and faith.

Stage 2.1: Age of the Quest. Age 19-23.

The individual is determined to apply his new insights into something useful and worthwhile. He doesn't quite know what, exactly, but it appears that University is one of the best ways to get there, wherever 'there' is. He meets all sorts of different people, people he had never imagined he would meet. People who are on their own quests of sorts. People searching for knowledge, as he is. He interacts with them and learns that the world is a much bigger place than he previously imagined. He discusses religion and finds that there is a huge variety of religion, but the religious people all seem to think theirs is the most obvious and best. Of course God is a liberal, just like me. Of course God is Love, just as I yearn for love. Of course God is abstract and unknowable, just as I am confused about reality. The individual sees that religion is not just an ancient throwback, but a constantly changing and evolving thing. This religion problem seems even bigger than he originally thought. But leave all those people to their deranged beliefs, I'll just get on with my own life. The individual begins to develop a more mature philosophy, and tests his philosophy against the other philosophers he meets. He finds that none seem to have any serious challenges against science, and in fact most tend to have little understanding of science, except the scientists. And wow, do those scientists ever have some amazingly mind-bending ideas!

What? That's totally backwards! Here's how it really works (anecdotally, of course):

Stage 3.0: Age of the Trial. Age 23-26.

The individual knew that nihilism was a dead end years ago! Back in the Age of Angst, he saw that nihilism is completely pointless and is tantamount to giving up. The individual has already for years been building up his own philosophy based on pragmatism, and it works very well. He dabbled somewhat in panpsychism, but after studying computers, math, and science, especially physics and biology, he realized that structures and processes are important, and that intelligence can be described in terms of structure, meaning that some structures display more intelligence than others, and there's no need to postulate that atoms have any complex experiences, since they are relatively much simpler structures than human brains. The individual sees Objectivists and Marxists as just another example of comfort-blanket dogmatists, and will have nothing to do with those philosophies. the individual starts a career and begins to make a living for himself, using the skills and talents he's gained to make real changes in the world.

Stage 3.1: Age of Confusion. Age 26-28.

The individual pursues his career, and reaches the 'top', so to speak. He realizes that the corporate world and egoistic culture he has been raised in is just another comfort-blanket mythology. He is not happy. The world is not just fucked up for other people, it's fucked up for everyone, including himself. To top it off, the world is headed for shit. He is shocked by 9/11. He starts to look for a unifying answer to it all. He knows it's not God. Thankfully he won't get hooked by that bait-and-switch. He knows there must be a real core to his philosophy and decides to try to figure it out.

Stage 3.2: Age of Wonder. Age 29-32.

The individual joins some websites with like-minded people. He starts to discuss philosophy and politics, especially the politics of religion, since religion appears to be one of the biggest culprits. He realizes that while the things that religion teaches are false, religions themselves are real entities, real 'structures' so to speak. They can be studied like any pragmatic science would study any real world structure. He realizes that the mind-altering effects of religion are also real. He starts to apply evolutionary thinking to religious phenomena, and sees that religions are clearly evolving in much the same process as DNA evolves. He starts to experiment with altered states of consciousness. He starts to think, What is it that is at the foundation of my philosophy. And he realizes that the foundation is his sense of wonder. His curiosity. His drive to ask questions and not be satisfied with non-answers. His dream of a better world. He is far beyond any ancient mythology, but he now understands why people are attracted to it. He starts to see possible ways of overcoming this problem of religion, and nihilism, and consumerist culture. He starts to see new ways that he can make changes in the world.

Yeah right. Bullshit. This does not describe the individual at all. It's a straw man.

Who knows what will really happen. Nothing can be known to 100% certainty. But some things *can* be known, at least enough to be confident about.

We will study religions and other cultural memes to the point that we finally have some conscious and intelligent control over them. We will apply forethought to the design of our society. We will become Prometheus himself. Whether the nutjobs in power push the button before we get a handle on culture is anybody's guess. But the pragmatist and the wonderist will keep trying anyway, for they have a dream of a better future. Not the end of the world, but the beginnings of new worlds!

Ha ha! Another proof! Proof proof PRROOOF PRrOoFf _proof^proofproof.

Presuppositionalist

    A healing message from god , FUCK YOU SATAN .... 

 

Is there a list of those somewhere? I mean, there are lots of types of Christianity to chose from, so I'm confused as to which one is the one that fits perfectly with good moral fiber, or whatever it was.

Many do and many don't, look at you.  You need a reference here for your claim.

This is dependent on environment. I went to parochial schools and had very religious parents. I questioned all the time but accepted the modified narrow view I was taught until my 20's.

Virtue as defined by a religion may not be a virtue at all. Killing infidels is virtuous to some.

Or perhaps their mind is opened and reason and logic errode the years of Goebbels style indoctrination performed by parents and misrepresentative theology.

Based on what standard? Rejecting extremist Islam, Kool-aid death cults, or Man is Evil from birth concepts may indicate  a very high degree of  moral fiber.

Pure speculation.

Again, pure speculation. I changed religions to Catholic from Lutheran, primarily because my wife was Catholic. I spent weeks in preparation and understood more of Catholicism than I had as a Lutheran. I never accepted all of the doctrine though.

As I went through college I learned many things about religion and the Church that were repressed or downplayed in my religious education.

I came to grips with the failure of all religions thanks to courses at a Jesuit University. I put religion in a box called not true why bother with it and ignored it. This continued until religious fanatics starting killing "infidels" such as 9/11. This woke me up to the evils of religion. I began to counter and argue against all religions following 9/11. I see now ignoring religion is a mistake. It's like a diamondback rattlesnake, you should never take your eyes away from it least it bite you.

 

Moral fiber as you define it may be immoral to others. You of course are immoral to most Muslims. Perhaps intelligence is not involved as I know many intelligent people that are not Christian as well as many that are.

 

In perusing the subject of stages of belief I found these links. None resemble that which you posted.

 Belief Stages and Growth

 Stages of Belief

Contradictory Influences of Religion in the Early Stages of Life

The Development of Religious Beliefs and Commitment in Adolescence

 

 

You are completely full of shit. Religiousity has been shown to be inversely proportional to intelligence. Asshat.

As opposed to the statistics that you've yet to produce?

Presuppositionalist

   Please read the bible and recently found "gnostic scroll" writings  .... "story" jesus is the atheist/pantheist, and your way thinking was / is the "enemy" ..... Bible Paul was  talented and fucking crazy ..... I like what he wrote on "what is love", but his Jesus was shit crap .... when you add it all up ....

   Read RRS Rook 

 

There is no "Catholic God", friend. There is only THE God. I will not let your solipsisms by, you crafty little person.

In other words: If we're dumb, it's bad. If we're smart, it's bad.

You didn't see that coming? Really?

It is not elitism, it is a statement of fact. Men are stronger than women on average. Is the scientist who reports it a sexist?

There are no "versions of Christianity", relativist. Your little word games do you no good. There is the Bible, and there is everything else. There is that which is Christian, and there is that which is not. This is the law of non-contradiction- or have you forgotten it, in your descent from reason? You may stand on no middle ground and no waffling theology. BELIEVE OR DON'T!

But this relies on another unproven assertion: Demonstrate that your mind is anything more than the cascading electrochemical reactions in your brain over time. When you have shown a non-biological mind to exist, then we can address whether it ends.

Bad news: Islam is growing faster than Christianity.

Here's a source (with their own sourcing!): http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

But that relies on yet another unproven assumption. You cannot provide any mechanism by which these "reactions" may become conscious. Ergo, we postulate a different sort of substance: the soul. This is the line of reasoning followed by the great John Locke.

But Christianity is bigger than Islam. We have MORE. I don't care what's growing faster, that stuff fluctuates daily. Numbers, baby, numbers! Position, not velocity! There's your success rate, and we win that one hands down.

In fairness, I said it was a phase typical to appx 16-30 year olds which is abandoned around the time the brain completes its development, since the intellectual and moral faculties reach their peak at that time. So while I would agree that it isn't a "phase of the teenagers", I would call it an indicator of intellectual/moral development. I would also say that the specific worldview to which the atheist holds is a further indicator of such development. For example, an Objectivist is more intellectually/morally developed than a Buddhist or nihilist since he at least recognizes that he must have a full philosophy to live.

Except that I'm not the one adding anything to the data set. If I were providing a mechanism by which the chemical reactions aggregate into awareness, I would be expected to support that assertion. I'm not. I'm leaving that at 'I don't know'. You, on the other hand, are adding something to the data set. 'Ergo, we postulate a different sort of substance: the soul.' You are then assuming the burden of proving the existence of this substance before we can add it to the data set.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

Well, if it fluctuates daily, then you must not have slept for over twenty years. If you'll read the page in a little more depth, you'll note that those rates of growth have remained constant for over a generation.

Also, your religion places a requirement on the believer to preach, to seek conversions, to try to bring others into the body of Christ. Thus, it would seem that your success rate, the rate of growth of the Faith, would be the true measure of success. And that, really, is where the great schisms are hurting you: Most efforts made by Christians to convert others are simply efforts to convince someone to change denominations; Lutheran to Catholic, Anglican to Jehovah's Witness, etc. There is no cohesion, and so, stagnation. That you do not care that your faith is losing ground to Islam is probably a good indicator of why it is: for all your bluster, you really don't care about helping others find their way, only about having someone else say 'you're right', and give you the validation and reassurance that you are so desperately, obviously, seeking.

Ironic, really... I'd have expected you'd get that from your God.

 

You just said that either there are no atheists over 30 years, or they are mentally retarded. Thats really insulting you know.

 

And what you got against buddhists? You keep talking about them so much.

Sweet.  My denomination gets mentioned.

"Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)"

-Taken from the 28 "Fundamental" Beliefs.

In any case..

Even if morality is not relative, that does not mean any one has a perfect understanding of it.  Anytime someone says "this is moral, this is not moral," what I think they should saying is, assuming they believe in an absolute morality, "this is what I understand to be moral, this is what I understand not to be moral, based upon interpretation of X, understanding of Y, moral theory B, or experience Z."

"Based upon my belief concerning morality, immorality is more a matter of how one views the action they are doing or what underlying motivation they have for doing the action.  Those things you listed are not immoral per se.  In a sense, immorality can only be determined, in large part, on a case by case basis and only from the perspective of the individual acting. 

For me, all things being equal, smoking, drinking alcohol, or eating pork, would be immoral, or at least (just in case the word "immoral" has too much baggage) shouldn't be done, because (on the most basic level) I consider them medically harmful to myself and I have no reason to eat or drink any of it (although, perhaps other people do have reason, like, "not offending the company&quot.  Yet, don't get me wrong, nowadays it would appear that pork is no more harmful to the body than beef.  So, applying the same reasoning, I probably shouldn't be eating beef either.

So, immoral for me.  Maybe not for you.

Try to keep in mind that I don't think something is immoral just because the bible seems to say so. The text is, in many ways, extremely open to interpretation, and so, even if it was meant to "create morality," it might be difficult to ascertain such "codes."  Immoral is immoral because it's bad for you, bad for others.  At least that's the way I view it."

Heh.. that paragraph was a little hard to write because the word "immoral" has so many connotations for me as well as any other people--and I know I might be hammared because of it.

Considered by who? If you mean "considered by the ones doing the actions," then perhaps you are right--afterall, I don't know their minds.  If you mean "considered by everyone who accepts this idea (if you're speaking of mine)," not at all.

What I suggests is that this:

Personal morality may or may not reflect what is actually "moral" (in some "objective" or "absolute" sense).  But, since one doesn't know whether or not his personal morality does, in actuality, reflect what is actually "moral," that person should be careful to judge someone else.

In other words, it suggests that everyone could be wrong, not that everyone is per se right.

That being said, such things as the holocaust, or 9/11, I would try to stop them not because I view their actions as immoral per se, but rather because my own moral code would prompt me to protect those they wished to kill.