Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
I can certainly understand how an NT would be religious, given that even NTs take some of their beliefs for granted, and given that NTs are drawn to abstract systems, of which theology is certainly an example. It also satisfies the INTP demand for an understanding of EVERYTHING, which religion might be able to satisfy, even if I think that it is only from relatively empty calories.
Do NT atheists take any of their beliefs for granted? Just trying to understand your position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Everyone has biases. I am just trying not to leave NTs off the hook.
NT atheists shouldn't be left off the hook either. As one Christian comedian put it, "an atheist is one who has studied the evidence, weighed the evidence, and come to the rational conclusion that there is no God. Some people want to skip the evidence and go straight to the conclusion. That's not an atheist, that's a moron." I think, even being an atheist, you would agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
NT atheists shouldn't be left off the hook either. As one Christian comedian put it, "an atheist is one who has studied the evidence, weighed the evidence, and come to the rational conclusion that there is no God. Some people want to skip the evidence and go straight to the conclusion. That's not an atheist, that's a moron." I think, even being an atheist, you would agree.
Yeah, you got me. Except for the "there is no God" conclusion. My previous outline on the atheist position was premised on the reality that most atheists are philosophically and ultimately agnostic, but that they simply bet their money on atheism based upon seriously overwhelming probability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
@tberg I think it's at least partially dependent on which evidence you are shown, what kind of evidence it is (empirical, emotional, spiritual, etc.), and who shows it to you/what they believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
@My Own Worst Judge, I have already offered an explanation of my thoughts in greater detail on the previous page. You can respond to it if you would like. I think people's resistance to acknowledging the sense of anti-theist criticism is a result of positive bias that tips the scale in God's favor. We have all heard the pro-God propaganda for so long that we are afraid to bring him down to a level where we can criticize him like we criticize other humans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
LOL, "Americhristianity" .... I couldn't have coined a better term myself!!

Americhristianity is basically a nasty American WASP primacy nostalgia cultural movement that employs the literalist protestant interpretation of the bible as a means of pounding the sheep over the head with dogma.

At least with Catholicism (NOT excusing all their nasty faults and evils they have committed over many centuries), there is a large bureaucracy of professional theologians who filter out all the extremist nonsense. Protestantism encourages any old moron to interpret the bible any way they see fit and start their own church (cult) that spews whatever toxic bullshit mythos the leader desires.

I'm certainly no fan of organized religion but if it must exist it should be left to professional thinkers who are intellectually and philosophically inclined.

Personally I think for us to be able to move forward as a species, we are going to have to reconcile science and religion. As someone mentioned above, the complete denial of a presumable higher spiritual force is both arrogant and nihilistic. Nihilism is worse than religion in my view. We can keep alive a belief in god while disposing of all the toxic, outdated beliefs that Judeo-Christianity-Islam has infected billions of people with. The idea that we're all born inherently evil because of the actions of a couple people from some old fable is not only absurd but a major shackle around humanity's ankle. We need to get rid of the old slave religions and death cults once and for all!

We can love god, life, technological progress, discovery of the secrets of the universe and many other great things all at the same time!! We can embrace this all without all the frivolous baggage we have inherited from our primitive epochs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
At least with Catholicism (NOT excusing all their nasty faults and evils they have committed over many centuries), there is a large bureaucracy of professional theologians who filter out all the extremist nonsense. Protestantism encourages any old moron to interpret the bible any way they see fit and start their own church (cult) that spews whatever toxic bullshit mythos the leader desires.
So, you would rather the general public be TOLD how to interpret the Bible, than give individual people the freedom to interpret it for themselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
@Pr0metheus, I think you will find that the concept of God is just a cop out for too many people. I think Karl Marx elucidates this point quite well:

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious
suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
The thing is, I think methods of scientific inquiry are better suited towards solving timeless human problems than the capricious excuses and justifications inspired by mysticism. We actually know what's right for people. People want to be able to survive, to have good friends, to learn about the world, to have a variety of experiences, to be healthy and fit. Our task is to fulfill these needs so that people don't have to break into their spiritual reserve and contort their psyche with hypocritical excuses for bad behavior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
So, you would rather the general public be TOLD how to interpret the Bible, than give individual people the freedom to interpret it for themselves?
Not necessarily in the way the Catholic Church does, but yes, I feel that some sort of intellectual oversight committee helps in the way of keeping completely idiotic ideas in check. I am certainly not a champion of the masses if that's what you're asking. Most people are just walking egos without an ounce of spiritual discipline in their bodies, much less having anything of remote intellectual substance in their heads. Just look at the vomit-inducing junk on TV that gets the highest ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
LOL, "Americhristianity" .... I couldn't have coined a better term myself!!

Americhristianity is basically a nasty American WASP primacy nostalgia cultural movement that employs the literalist protestant interpretation of the bible as a means of pounding the sheep over the head with dogma.

At least with Catholicism (NOT excusing all their nasty faults and evils they have committed over many centuries), there is a large bureaucracy of professional theologians who filter out all the extremist nonsense. Protestantism encourages any old moron to interpret the bible any way they see fit and start their own church (cult) that spews whatever toxic bullshit mythos the leader desires.

I'm certainly no fan of organized religion but if it must exist it should be left to professional thinkers who are intellectually and philosophically inclined.

Personally I think for us to be able to move forward as a species, we are going to have to reconcile science and religion. As someone mentioned above, the complete denial of a presumable higher spiritual force is both arrogant and nihilistic. Nihilism is worse than religion in my view. We can keep alive a belief in god while disposing of all the toxic, outdated beliefs that Judeo-Christianity-Islam has infected billions of people with. The idea that we're all born inherently evil because of the actions of a couple people from some old fable is not only absurd but a major shackle around humanity's ankle. We need to get rid of the old slave religions and death cults once and for all!

We can love god, life, technological progress, discovery of the secrets of the universe and many other great things all at the same time!! We can embrace this all without all the frivolous baggage we have inherited from our primitive epochs.
While I have many problems with how America does Christianity, my problems are more often with the things they choose to ignore/misinterpret in order to make they're religion easier to reconcile with the American dream. I'm afraid I stand with the people who take a literal interpretation. If you don't believe it literally, you can make it say whatever you want it to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Not necessarily in the way the Catholic Church does, but yes, I feel that some sort of intellectual oversight committee helps in the way of keeping completely idiotic ideas in check. I am certainly not a champion of the masses if that's what you're asking. Most people are just walking egos without an ounce of spiritual discipline in their bodies, much less having anything of remote intellectual substance in their heads. Just look at the vomit-inducing junk on TV that gets the highest ratings.
A certain Joel Osteen comes to mind. The guy makes me want to puke. For the record, what he preaches is NOT Christianity.

However, he is one of a few exceptions. Most of the differences in interpretation are minor, and that's where all the different denominations come from. I am a Southern Baptist, but I can get along quite well with most Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
I'm a religious INTJ, and I think my type had a lot to do with me being religious compared to my ESXX friends. I also believe that religion and science go hand in hand, and I tend to study religion from a scientific standpoint. I'm currently reading a book called "The Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran" it's quite interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
A certain Joel Osteen comes to mind. The guy makes me want to puke. For the record, what he preaches is NOT Christianity.

However, he is one of a few exceptions. Most of the differences in interpretation are minor, and that's where all the different denominations come from. I am a Southern Baptist, but I can get along quite well with most Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.
I think I mentioned Joel in this thread. Westboro baptist, too. Or maybe I just really, really wanted to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
@Pr0metheus,

The thing is, I think methods of scientific inquiry are better suited towards solving timeless human problems than the capricious excuses and justifications inspired by mysticism. We actually know what's right for people. People want to be able to survive, to have good friends, to learn about the world, to have a variety of experiences, to be healthy and fit. Our task is to fulfill these needs so that people don't have to break into their spiritual reserve and contort their psyche with hypocritical excuses for bad behavior.
I couldn't agree more. I especially like this passage:

The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Exactly, people need to discover their own inner sun and stop revolving around other suns that have been created for them.

But...it will take a lot of cultural evolution to get to a point where a majority of the people are acutely self-aware enough to accomplish this. Most of the population is still stuck in "sheep mode" ... like they have an inherent need for more influential people to feed them a pre-fab worldview.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
A certain Joel Osteen comes to mind. The guy makes me want to puke. For the record, what he preaches is NOT Christianity.
Good thing you bring him up. What a total cult-of-personality douchebag. He is a prime illustration of the difference between message-based and messenger-based religious movements. He of course falls into the latter category. People are drawn to his ego not any sort of spiritual message (if there is any, in his case).
However, he is one of a few exceptions. Most of the differences in interpretation are minor, and that's where all the different denominations come from. I am a Southern Baptist, but I can get along quite well with most Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.
That's because (I am assuming) you are not an idiot with a chip on your shoulder. One of my main beefs with churches like yours is how politicized they have become. If a religious institution pushes a political agenda, they should lose their tax-exempt status IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
If a religious institution pushes a political agenda, they should lose their tax-exempt status IMHO.
If that is the case, then Christians should not have to pay for someone else's abortion, especially someone they have never met. Just saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
If a religious institution pushes a political agenda, they should lose their tax-exempt status IMHO.
I have to disagree; if Christianity is the most important thing in my life, separating it from my politics is irrational. If it's my agenda, why do I not have the right to push for it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
I have to disagree; if Christianity is the most important thing in my life, separating it from my politics is irrational. If it's my agenda, why do I not have the right to push for it?
You do have the right. You just don't get the privilege of avoiding taxation in order to push your agenda. Fairness dictates that your views on religion do not get special preference. Why doesn't my hatred of Christianity get tax breaks?
 
41 - 60 of 142 Posts
Top