@Fire Ologist @Tom Storm
See this:

/.../ why you believe it as true (although it is false). — Bob Ross

This is Bob Ross feeling superior to me.

Twice he invents the charge of strawmanning against me, and he believes he knows The Truth About God while I don't.

This is the feeling superior to others that I'm talking about.

After he created us by default such that we only deserve to suffer for all eternity.

In Christianity, we reap what we sow; and only those that on their demerits will they go to hell. What you have done is omitted justice from the discussion and straw manned Christianity with the idea that everyone should go to hell despite having sinned or not. — Bob Ross

Strawmanned? Eh?
Learn your doctrine.
Once born, we are said to bear the stain of the Original Sin, and this is enough to send us straight to eternal suffering.

Likewise, it is up for debate what exactly ‘suffering’ is like in hell. The popular view in present day is that hell is just a maximally distant place from God—from goodness itself—and those who deserve to be there tend to want to to be there by obstinately rejecting goodness itself.

Then they'll be happy!

Think of Satan as an embodiment of this: he was a high-ranking archangel with solid knowledge of God’s goodness, and he rejected in favor of his own autonomy—to be his own god.

That story would be silly if it weren't so cruel in its misrepresentation. Angels are incapable of even desiring autonomy.

He first fucks us up

God didn’t cause us to fall: adam and eve did and we suffer the consequences—but not guilt—of their sin.

And yet God made Adam and Eve.

It has to be conditional to be just. If you do not want to be saved, for example, then it would be unjust to force you to be saved: that would violate your free will and autonomy to choose what is good or evil. God’s plan is the perfect synthesis of justice and mercy—not one at the expense of the other.

These are all truisms that mean nothing until we clearly specifiy what exactly is "good" (and "evil").

 resting on picking the right religion.

This isn’t true, and is a common misunderstanding among areligious and even some religious people. There is a Divinely revealed and guaranteed way to end up saved (which is the Sacraments); but this does not mean that anyone not on that path is going to hell.

Why, yes, indeed, according to the Catechism of the RCC, it's virtually impossible to go to hell.
However, the RCC is just one Christian denomination claiming to have the right understanding of God, among several thousand.

You are straw manning traditional Catholicism with an oversimplification of ‘picking the right religion’.

Again with the accusation of strawmanning! You don't say!

How is it an act of infinite wisdom and goodness to create living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering?

I would like to ask you why you believe that Christianity teaches that we deserve only eternal suffering by merely being born human: that’s not the traditional nor a predominant view.

It's not a specifically Catholic view, sure. But I never claimed to be presenting or arguing against the Catholic view to begin with. That's your strawmanning. You should be sorry.

The view that God creates living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering is the view with the most damning implications, and as such, it's the one that needs to be refuted or resolved, or overcome, or whatever.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with you: I think that if I understood your background and what you have come to know and why you have come to believe it that I would completely understand why you believe it as true (although it is false).

Oh, and I should believe you, and not the other Christians. Right.

You Christians should first sort things out amongst yourselves before you go out to preach to others, blaming your confusion and lack of unity on others.

I don’t think there is a single “Christianity” as such. There are multiple religions that use the title Christianity and often consider themselves to be the truer account. — Tom Storm

Of course. They've even killed eachother over who has the right understanding of God.

It seems part of Christianity's success is precisely its vagueness, its amoebic, shape-shfting identity. How its concepts mean everything and nothing, how it can go a million ways. How it's ungraspable.

(And that wasn’t Christlike or Christian, so should account for any “success” of Christianity.) — Fire Ologist

So this behavior of Christians is not to be taken as exemplary of Christianity, and that behavior of Christians is not to be taken as exemplary of Christianity. But then what is? Why are we always supposed to make these exceptions and always look for ways to excuse Christians?

The core Christian message is that God is trying to bring us to know and love him. There is no such thing as knowing someone or loving someone without their free, honest willingness.

But there's a catch: We have only one lifetime to do it, and if we fail, that's it, hell, forever.

This in itself is more universally appealing.

Under the pressure of only one lifetime for action, it becomes absurd. Even more absurd when one considers the possibility that one could die at any time.

Christianity democratized human value, not to each other, but to a God who loves each one.

How is it an act of "love" that God grants some people the privilege of being born and raised into a religion and thus never having to struggle with choosing a religion and joining it -- but witholds that privilege from others?
That's not love, that's sadistic perversion.

I agree with your assertion. Moreover, I'd like to point out that the question itself is already posed within the paradigm of "why did this ideology take off," rather than, for example, "is Christianity a doctrine of love?" — Astorre

What do you mean by "love"?
If you believe that someone deserves to die, to be killed (by you, even), and you spare them, is that an act of "love" on your part?

Just as it is "wise and effective" for lions to hunt antelopes.
— baker
Then you may as well classify any societal human endeavor as "lions hunting antelope". — Tzeentch

Are you the antelope?
How does one cope with being the antelope?

This is a topic I am very interested in, I started several threads on it.

It makes them feel superior
— baker

What position is the person in who says about another person “it makes them feel superior?”

That doesn’t seem right. Pots and kettles scrapping for the superiority of their color. — Fire Ologist

Eh?
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that feeling superior to others is somehow wrong, or that I am criticizing religious/spiritual people for feeling superior to others.
It's not and I don't. If anything, it's evolutionarily advantageous to feel superior to others.

For the first approximately 300 years (that’s 3 centuries) how many Christians felt superior then?

The whole point of religion/spirituality seems to be to feel superior to others -- even if one is in the gutter, and especially when one is in the gutter. Or on the cross, as the case may be.
"Yes, I am poor and weak and ill, but I still know the truth about God!! And you don't!!"

Seems like a solid foundation in humility to me. Not supremacy at all. Christ was God, and he never did anything but what his father told him to do, unto death, on a cross, at the hands of we pigs and rats. Find the superiority over others in that!

I just did.

And let's get something straight: Make up your mind whether you want to be a proper monotheist, or a demigod worshipper.
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God, God incarnate, then the whole episode on the cross was a sham, a PR stunt: nobody actually died, nobody suffered, nothing, it was just an act, a play for some particular audience.
If, however, Jesus was an ordinary man, and was made divine only after the crucifiction, then he was only a demigod, not God proper, or an incarnation of God, which opens up a number of other problems.

My understanding of a Christian success would be sainthood. How many saints do you think there are? Having met many people in my life, I suspect not many.

So you'd say Christianity is not (particularly) successful?

But my straight answer, talking history or psychology, Christianity is the most widespread through history and across the globe because it is the most practical (easy rules) and welcoming of all religions, calling sinners first and foremost (so every single soul is wanted).

And my answer talking theology is that the success is mostly because God wants it that way.

If God exists, then everything is as God wants it anyway.

This belittles the point: Christian’s were brutally persecuted throughout the early church. — Bob Ross

Who wasn't?
Who isn't?

You are singling out the Christians in Rome as if everyone except the Christians had a great time and an easy life.

Or what are you saying? That it was okay for the Romans to treat everyone, including other Romans, poorly, but that they should have spared the Christians, and only the Christians?

Maybe that's a projection on your part. Certainly an overly complicated frame. If I experince irreversible pain I would like to die. — Tom Storm

It's not a projection, it's a fact. Not everyone thinks the way you do, it's not universal, it's not a given, it's not something that can or should be taken for granted about people.

How much suffering someone experiences along with the pain they're feeling is not the same for all people. This is kind of the whole point of Buddhism: to distinguish between pain and suffering. Pain is unavoidable, but suffering isn't. Suffering is that which, arguably, hurts more than the pain.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here until we talk about the desire to not have your friend/family member die. But that's not what's in your response. Hmm.

But, to respond: Yeah, obviously. Its not a serious claim. Its edge-lord nonsense. I can see why a particularly vulnerable person would be harmed by those words. But the idea that it would lead to actual suicide is extreme. Yep, it happens, but then the desire was not that of the actor.

Is that what you're getting at? I think that's prima facie a totally different conversation. — AmadeusD

On all levels, humans actually wish that certain other humans would die or not exist.
From children telling other children "Do me a favor and die!" to governments acquiring massive amounts of weapons and starting wars.
It's normal. It's normalized. Even if tacitly.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here — AmadeusD

Why on earth not?? Can you explain?

If other people want you dead, should you not kill yourself?
By staying alive, you are offending them!

Can we unpack this? Because other people's desires that someone should die or not exist certainly play a part in how worthy of life someone deems themselves.

I am currently well and healthy, but I want to retain the option of ending my own life if circumstances deteriorate. If I were to develop a terminal illness that involved significant suffering, I would want that option available. — Tom Storm

In other words, you have internalized your local cultural standard of what makes life worth living and from when on life isn't worth living anymore.

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights".
— baker

If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim. — Corvus

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do.

It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

How can a person be free from "external coercion" when they are living in a culture telling them that by failing to live up to the culture's standards they have lost the right to live?

Do you think that accounts for 100% of them at all times? — Tom Storm

Sure, they occasionally forget their doctrinal tenets or stray from them ... But the ideal has always been supremacy.

Christianity laid forth rules of life that were wise and effective. — Tzeentch

Just as it is "wise and effective" for lions to hunt antelopes.

For those who are not Christians, like me, it is often difficult to understand why the faith resonates so strongly and what hold it has on people. — Tom Storm

It makes them feel superior to the outgroup and makes them feel justified to destroy the outgroup.

In fact, Christians were notorious for their eagerness for martyrdom. Tertullian actually boasted of this death wish. He wrote of an incident when a crowd of Christians accosted a Roman magistrate and demanded he kill them. The annoyed magistrate told them that if they wanted to die so badly they could find rope to hang themselves or throw themselves off a handy cliff, but he wouldn't accommodate them. — Ciceronianus

Good response by the magistrate.

Yes, it's typical for religious/spiritual people to be eager to play the victim. It's a defining characteristic of religiosity/spirituality.

Christianity is uniquely the only religion where God is so merciful and loving that He comes down to us out of genuine concern for us: — Bob Ross

After he created us by default such that we only deserve to suffer for all eternity.
He first fucks us up, and then offers us some conditional salvation, resting on picking the right religion. That's "concern for us"? In what world is this "concern for us"?

all other religions place God as this being way above us that it would be beneath Him to care about us in any personal way—let alone die for us.

Sure, but those religions also don't expect people to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness (!!) created humans in such a way that they deserve nothing but eternal sufferring.

Because of this, it gives a unique view that we can achieve union with God through God’s mercy; and not by the super rare chance of doing everything right to make it. Why is this uninspiring to you (even if you don’t believe it is true)?

How is it an act of infinite wisdom and goodness to create living beings who by default deserve only eternal suffering?
I don't find that "inspiring". Of course, your ilk are going to tell me that there is something wrong with me ...

Nothing was said about ending someone elses life. — AmadeusD

What discussions of this topic so often so frustratingly lack is an acknowledgment that many people often have the desire that some other people would not exist or that they would die.

Have you ever been told, as a teenager, by another teenager, "Do me a favor and die!"?

Do you think that people magically stop thinking like that once they become legal adults?

X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life. — Corvus

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights".

Countries where medically assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal are basically telling people, "If you can't live up to our culture's standards, then it's better that you don't exist at all. And we are gracious enough to make options for this available to you." Some people internalize this and make use of those options. (And there is no shortage of those who will comment on this with, "Finally, at long last."

/.../
Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

All major religions are like that.

If anything, the reason for the success of Christianity doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity per se, it's just that at the time and place, there was/is no other religion to fill the niche. The niche was/is calling for a religion that is authoritarian, hierarchical, compatible with slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. All major religions can fill that nichem (and they do so, in their respective locations), it's just a question of coincidence which one will arrive in a particular geographic location first.

Lacking what is my point? — AmadeusD

They lack social acceptability.

"We have the right not to be reminded of the ugly sides of life" is the usually unspoken stance underlying this topic.

Sometimes, this stance is even fully verbalized. I remember reading a story where a woman didn't want an autistic (IIRC) relative of her husband to be around her children, calling that relative "an abomination in the eyes of God". Or another one where parents were campaigning against a student with some obvious deformity attending the same school as their children, claiming that their children should not have to be "exposed to this".

What has changed from, say, 50 and more years ago, is that now people with various forms of deformity or disability are now more allowed to live among the abled than they were in the past, where they were often confined to various institutions or private care. So now more people who hold such stances as the parents mentioned above have cause to also utter those stances (not to mention that there are now communication platforms that didn't exist back then).

Can you define Normal?[/quote]
Normal is not to ask what is "normal".

In any event, I draw a rigid distinction between ability and worth, with infinite worth taken as a given, undiminishable and not measurable by ability. That is, to suggest the worth of the deaf person has increased when he has been given the ability to hear is offensive. His worth is not to be measured in terms of the things he can do. — Hanover

To be clear: You promote the adversarial approach to human interaction. How do you reconcile this with your idea of a person having "infinite worth"?

The adversarial approach to human interaction implies that other people are expendable and can be destroyed; so, obviously, it's not a reflection of the belief that they have "infinite worth".

I wonder if he has to attend philo-anon meetings now. “Hello everybody, my name is ProtagoranSocratist and I’m a phil-aholic.” — Joshs

Ha ha. Getting a real taste of aging, illness, and death, such as in the form of looking after a demented, barely mobile, incontinent elderly relative is very existentially wholesome. Cures one of silly ideas.

My concern was more existential than transcendental: how, in the wake of the collapse of shared cosmic narratives, lived significance is actually sustained or whether it decays into nihilism. In that sense, I wasn’t claiming that meaning is constructed from nothing, but that historically we now inhabit conditions where the background structures that once stabilized meaning have broken down and is often experienced as “nothing matters.” — Wayfarer

No. This is simply the thought process of an ostracized or otherwise incompetent person.

For starters, there is no "we", there is no universal human solidarity in the problem you describe. Rightwingers, religious people, and psychologists will say that the above is simply your personal problem, not something shared by all of humanity. Existential incompetence is not a universal human trait. Even if perhaps many people are thusly existentially incompetent, this merely means that many people are thusly existentially incompetent, and nothing more. Even if 99% of the population were thusly existentially incompetent, it still wouldn't be a universal human trait, because human traits are not devised based on statistics, but based on ideas.

For the first time in history, an external, universal, generally accepted authority (God, Reason, Inevitable Progress) has disappeared, one that would say, "None of this is accidental; it's all part of a greater, meaningful plan." — Astorre

See above.

Can you give one reason why what you're talking about shouldn't be considered simply your personal problem?

Helping others. — GreekSkeptic

But are you really helping them?

Do they feel helped by you?

Did you ask them?


There is such a thing as pathological altruism:

/.../
Writing in The New York Times, Natalie Angier called the book a "scholarly yet surprisingly sprightly volume." She wrote,

pathological altruism is not limited to showcase acts of self-sacrifice... The book is the first comprehensive treatment of the idea that when ostensibly generous 'how can I help you?' behavior is taken to extremes, misapplied or stridently rhapsodized, it can become unhelpful, unproductive and even destructive. Selflessness gone awry may play a role in a broad variety of disorders, including anorexia and animal hoarding, women who put up with abusive partners and men who abide alcoholic ones. Because a certain degree of selfless behavior is essential to the smooth performance of any human group, selflessness run amok can crop up in political contexts. It fosters the exhilarating sensation of righteous indignation, the belief in the purity of your team and your cause and the perfidiousness of all competing teams and causes.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Altruism

If people would really care about the survival of mankind, they would change their ways.

There is a difference, though, between individuals not giving to others because they have no excess to give, and the supposedly God-given right of individuals to accumulate as much wealth and power as they are able to without being morally required to give at all if they don't feel like it. Their right to do this is predicated on the idea of individual merit―if they have the ability to accumulate wealth and power they should be allowed to do so unrestrictedly. But this ignores that fact that individuals use the privilege and benefits of a society that everyone (ideally and if the able to) contributes to, in order to rise as far as they can on power/ wealth scale. There is no acknowledgement , in that kind of thinking, of what the individual relies on―the societal infrastructure. So, I see it as a kind if willful blindness on the part of the right―and a kind of hypocrisy. — Janus

Rightwingers don't exactly believe there is such a thing as "society" to begin with (some explicitly deny society even exists, some have a particularist view of what makes for "society").

Insofar as these rightwingers are religious, they believe that all riches come from God (or through karma). So their refusal to acknowledge the general (!) societal infrastructure needed for an individual to succeed in life is neither willful blindness nor hypocrisy. It's simply part of their religious outlook to think that way. They do, however, tend to acknowledge the importance of the specific (!) societal infrastructure needed for an individual to succeed in life, ie. the importance of the immediate and extended family, mentors, etc.

A while back, a Slovenian right-wing parliamentary representative said, publicly, that the Bible is above the Constitution. And this is in a country that officially does not have a state religion.
This pretty much says it all.

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" seems to be the words of a fool in your eyes, no?
— Outlander

When dealing with ordinary people it works fine. When dealing with criminals or politicians, it does not. — Tzeentch

That's right. When talking about career criminals, there isn't nearly enough talk about politicians.
There is a whole category of people who literally get away with mass murder, and it's not even a television show!! And millions love them and adore them and want to be like them!!

Television shows that focus on smalltime criminals are really just distractions from the more relevant criminals.

You've hit the nail on the head: modern culture gives us the opportunity to rethink everything. Actually, that's exactly what I wanted to say: be morally gray, because you determine your own destiny.

But has the time come when we (humanity) are ready to admit this?

Won't this usher in a "moral decline" we can't even imagine? — Astorre

Why are you worried about a "moral decline"? Because you in particular might not have very good chances of survival when other people morally decline?

You're calling them wrong, essentially, which is putting into question not just every single act or non-act they've ever engaged in or disengaged in in the entirety of their life, but their entire life worth altogether (ie. "the meaning of life" itself).
— Outlander

Which is completely nonsensical. — Tzeentch

It's, literally, what "You're wrong" means. Language allows us to clearly distinguish between calling a particular person's particular action "wrong" (or "right" or whatever), and calling the person "wrong".
Yet few people avail themselves to this distinction and usually prefer the complete and absolute dismissal of the person, rather than merely their action(s).

Why did I get a notification for this?

From where I stand, good faith philosophers pursue philosophy for its intrinsic worth and mostly if not wholly shun its potential instrumental values for the ego, such as those of becoming famous, becoming financially wealthy, or gaining greater powers over others within society. Socrates, the homeless bum wanderer, certainly fits this description. — javra

I think this is a misleading and false dichotomy. What you call instrumental values aren't inherently bad. Why should wealth and power be bad?

I don't. As for the book on dating I've mentioned, you seemed to have overlooked the beginning part of the paragraph from which you pulled out your quote:

Well, to start off, what I was saying is that there is philosophical fluff that drowns out the good quality non-fluff philosophy in today's connected world. Fluff, then, is not sophistic BS but merely superficial and in due degree inconsequential.
— javra

Nor do I understand the entailment between the book "If the Buddha Dated" and Buddhism per se as philosophy. The first is relative fluff, the second ain't.

Like I said, I didn't know the book (although I've looked it up in the meantime). What caught my attention was that your description of it was like a decent reference to Buddhist philosophy even when gathered from a fluffy book; which is why I thought the book was an ironic presentation of the Buddhist teachings, while you did away with the ironic part in the way you summarized it.

Conflict is the way of the world, a given, the natural state (also see agonism).
— baker

As is harmony and happiness. Or are these somehow unnatural?

They are less salient.

And who ever even once mentioned "overcoming", to not even mention "banishing", conflict per se in general??? This would be projecting things into what I've said that were never there.

I was working with the standard lotus imagery.

Here, to put it in Buddhist terms, not until Nirvana is actualized on a global scale for one and all--in other words, not till the literal end of cosmic time--will there ever be a time when we're not knee-deep in existential conflicts. And the end of time is nowhere on the horizon.
One swims/navigates the waters of life; one doesn't overcome them.

One crosses over the waters of life, on the raft that is the Dhamma. So, at least, goes the imagery.

But, that said, I would like to presume that, when it comes to "conflict", you too would rather that those conflicts which occur as aspects of rapes and murders don't proliferate but, instead, cease occurring sooner rather than later. Notice, this has nothing to do with a cessation of wars and such; it wouldn't be world peace. It would only entail a cessation of wars where rapes and murders occur, rampantly so, and are in no way punished. I mention this because I've talked to some who view rapes and murders, such as in times of war, as innately ordained into our human nature (either by genes, by God, or by both). And I'm now curious to know your own stance on the matter.

Conflict is the way of the world. The difference between war time and peace time is only in that there are formal declarations of the government that one or the other is taking place. But beyond that, the same thing is going on, the same existential struggle, regardless whether the country is formally at war or not. Just the legally permitted means are somewhat different.

(And, no, a solder killing an adversary solder in a time of war is not of itself murder, this since all stated parties acknowledge and partake in the conflict of war.)

Actually, no, not anymore, not universally.
The killer of the soldier Jean-Michel Nicolier is actually being pursued as a murderer.

Are you saying that the religious people themselves have a cynical view on what religion is supposed to be? — Janus

Not at all. I think they have a very instrumental, down-to-earth (sic!) understanding of the "transcendental".

It's the secularists and the liberals who have it all wrong, because they are trying to paint an image of religion/spirituality that is palatable to their secular and liberal goals and sensitivities. Which makes for a very rosy, naive image, grossly unrealistic, not something that a person could actually live by.

The secularists and the liberals seem to like to forget that money needs to be earned, the earth tilled, work get done.
Secularists and liberals seem to think that wealth and power are dirty, and can only be dirty. I think this is where they are wrong. (And let's not forget that they themselves seek wealth and power.)

A character in a Turkish soap opera (yes, I watch some of them) once made an excellent point: Only God can afford to give without demanding or expecting something in return. A human cannot do that, because humans have only limited resources that they need to use very carefully. One should be wary of a human who assumes to give without demanding or expecting something in return. Such a person will eventually become bitter, cruel, and revengeful. It simply isn't in the power of humans to give without demanding or expecting something in return. And it has nothing to do with being selfish or stingy or otherwise having a bad character.

In contrast, you can frequently see secularists and liberals, sometimes in the garbs of the religious/spiritual, who actually teach that one should be selfless, give selflessly. But this is simply not realistic, and I agree with the insight above.

Is it something like metaphysics-as-politics? Or, given that the political right is generally associated with the idea that individuals, their personal achievements and the merits and privilege that thereby accrue to them, are more important than social values which support looking after those individuals who "don't make the grade"; is that the kind of thing you have in mind?

That too. It's a kind of Social Darwinism, but with a religious/spiritual theme. I find that the religious, at least the traditionalists, are far more serious and realistic about life, about the daily struggle that is life. I appreciate that about them and about religion.

In my opinion, modern people have almost forgotten what it's like to "feel shame." Films, books, and philosophers merely document its absence. Perhaps the times are now inappropriate, and shame as a tool is no longer necessary, as it is irrational by nature. — Astorre

Shame is irrational? Perhaps once it is cut off from a traditional metaphysical framework.

I once had occasion to criticize Kohlberg. The ideas at the time were roughly as follows: the approach is "Western-centric," ignoring, for example, the ethic of care as the foundation of community. In Asia or the East, people may be at stages 3 or 4, while stages 5 or 6 would be completely unacceptable for these societies. Renouncing family for the sake of universal values ​​in Asia is far from ideal.

That's a strange thing to say, given that in much of Asia, there are Dharmic religions, in which renouncing family "for the sake of universal values" is regarded highly (such as becoming a monk in a Buddhist country) or normal (like the vanaprastha and sannyasa stages in the asrama system).

The second point is this attempt to objectify ethics (cognitivism and logic); its post-conventional level assumes that the highest morality is a cold calculation of universal principles.

Kohlberg himself posited a possible seventh stage where he linked religion with moral reasoning.

Whereas a person can be characterized by "choice under uncertainty," for example, when you simply emotionally decide to act. For objectivists, this is a flaw (imperfection). Religion suggests that "bad" choices are not a human error, but part of its "sinful" nature that must be overcome.

And yet unless one is born and raised into a religion, one must calculate, most coldly, before one can join a religion. You're speaking from the privilege of someone who was born and raised into a religion.

you're not addressing the issue, beyond re-stating 'what is wrong with religion'. — Wayfarer

And this is your projection, that I'm stating 'what is wrong with religion'. You insist on reading that into my posts, and no matter how hard I try to explain otherwise, you won't desist. As if you are the authority over what the truth about my intentions is. You just bulldoze over me. You don't distinguish between my words and your interpretation of them. You have an extremely narrow-minded view of things. You regurgitate the same old notions, and you read other people's posts within the framework of those same old notions.
Ironically, with your particular approach to communication, you're making yourself an example of what you're criticising. It's hard to believe you're not seeing that, or that it isn't deliberate.
You're basically making sure that the discussion remains superficial and within the established framework of your old notions.

Talking to people like you, even I get the feeling that life is meaningless.

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary.
— baker
But you are asking them. That's the point. — Philosophim

Like a good boy scout.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation.
— baker
Certainly. But you don't let other stop you from asking those questions on your own.

Aww. You remind me of my teachers from earlier phases of my education. They, too, would talk about the importance of questioning. But the further in education I went, the less we were encouraged to ask questions.

And sometimes you get answers that need to be spread to other people bravely and without cowardice.

And who decides that those answers "need to be spread", if not one's ego?

How so?

If anything, I think you are exemplifying the problem that the OP is seeking to explain. You are the one who is modern, not I.

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

Who is "we"?
If you're referring to "mankind" and assuming it's somehow unified and uniform, then you're clearly wrong.

Secondly, there's no need to get all exotic and extraterrestrial. Let's rephrase your question to, "If the reality Tom experiences is the only thing that Tom has experienced, how does Tom know that there isn’t anything beyond Tom's reality?"
How about the internal states of Dick and Harry? Are they a reality for Tom? Does Tom care about the about the internal states of Dick and Harry? Does Tom even acknowledge the possibility that the internal states of Dick and Harry might be other than what Tom supposes?

I think that is just a tad cynical. — Wayfarer

Cynical is a word used by Pollyannas to denote an absence of the naiveté they so keenly exhibit.

Miss Sloane