User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 51

  1. #31
    Junior Member Kobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Einstein believed in God.
    It is the rational thing to do.
    God is the rational thing.

    Einstein said God does not play dice.
    If you play dice, how many alternatives do you have?
    Six in the first round.
    Six and thirty in the second round.

    Go on. You find some interesting conclusions.
    Change the number with the round.
    Na-ah:
    It was, of course, a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. - Einstein

    I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. - Einstein

    "We all have time to spend or waste, and it is our decision what to do with it. But once passed, it is gone forever. "-Bruce lee

  2. #32
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobe View Post
    Na-ah:
    It was, of course, a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. - Einstein

    I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. - Einstein
    What *insert gender of quoted poster here* said.

    Plus:
    Wiki link for even more clarification.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9/5?
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    There are no answers, only choices.
    I don't always agree with everything you say, but for this, I love you forever.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It's kind of hard to have a dialog when people start with assumptions that aren't the same.

    Again, one can hold a belief in God.

    One can't say with certainty that "God loves us so much that he wants the best for us." That's an assumption, at core, just like you might take an algebraic equation and say, "Assume that x=3."

    That's what a lot of this is.
    One person says x=3.
    Another says x=7.
    Another might say that z = x-y.

    It's nice to speculate those different things and see what patterns we can find if we start with particular assumptions.

    But in the end it's all based on the assumptions.
    There are no answers, only choices.
    I agree 100% with this, and take it even further. I mankind's understanding of the divine and unseen in 100% assumptions, and to prove either side is impossible, so one human being is logically incapable of enforcing any ideas on another, obviously..

    It's all about choices, what we infer, and how we see it. For me? I am a very spiritual person and I believe in God 100%, but in no way am I saying it's a fact. I find it wrong to try to tell others how it is..it's not something that exists outside of us- it's purely an inside inference.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    ...it's not something that exists outside of us- it's purely an inside inference.
    An immanent god.

    But an immanent god can't be reality tested.

    So an immanent god is out of touch with reality.

    Just as the thoughts of schizophrenics are out of touch with reality.

    And just as the emotions of the clinically depressed are out of touch with reality.

    But to be in touch is not only to be sane, but to be happy.

  6. #36
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    No, it's not pointless.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    For an Atheist...

  8. #38
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I'd say that no, it's not pointless because it helps people sleep at night. More power to them; just keep it out of my life unless I ask you to involve it.

    But another related point: I don't see why so many Ns insist on increasingly vague definitions of God just so they can keep saying they're believers. If God is really purely an internal force, can we at least call it something else so that we're not confused with Bible-thumping fundamentalists who take everything in religion literally?

    What if I think that God happens to be the happiness contained in this glass of red wine I'm consuming? Why, I guess then I'd be a theist--this wine makes me awfully happy.

    Except not, because that definition of God has just been watered down so much from the way the common theist actually believes in him today that it can scarcely be called God at all. You start with a literal conception of God, and then you slowly chisel away more and more properties from him based on rational inquiry that you finally end up with something so different that I have a lot of trouble seeing why you guys still call him that.

    Can't we all at least agree on a definition of God? Is he a conscious entity? Does he hear prayers? Does he actively manipulate worldly events? There is so much variation in ideas about what God actually is that "God" ends up being whatever the hell you want him/it to be, so much that the theist vs. atheist distinction becomes all but meaningless.

    Tell ya what: I'm an atheist because I don't believe in your man in the sky who judges our moral actions and personal beliefs, because no soul or energy unique to our personality lingers after the brain dies, and because I don't think shit happens to us after death (besides rotting in the ground.)

    And I shouldn't have to defend against these accusations of, "But how can you really be an atheist when you haven't disproved MY personal vague conception of God?...which happens to be that God is really just that good feeling I get when I have fulfilling experiences."

    Because to most religious people, your vague inner spirituality (or whatever) is not actually God, so I take no responsibility for (or intention of) disproving it when I call myself an atheist, and I wish this distinction were more universally obvious.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #39
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But another related point: I don't see why so many Ns insist on increasingly vague definitions of God just so they can keep saying they're believers. If God is really purely an internal force, can we at least call it something else so that we're not confused with Bible-thumping fundamentalists who take everything in religion literally?
    What else would people say during sex, then?

    Anyhoo, the definition of the word "god" actually is pretty well agreed on: "Whatever you think the driving force in the world is." People don't feel like they're watering down the definition, then; they're being very literal when they refer to God, even if the God they believe in seems more nebulous than YHWH, and you can't really take them as the "deviation" from the fundamentalist standard unless you are implicitly suggesting that the fundamentalist standard is the one everything should be judged by in the first place.


    What if I think that God happens to be the happiness contained in this glass of red wine I'm consuming? Why, I guess then I'd be a theist--this wine makes me awfully happy.
    *looks at empty bottle*

    "Bastard! You consumed God! He was supposed to consume you!"

    Except not, because that definition of God has just been watered down so much from the way the common theist actually believes in him today that it can scarcely be called God at all. You start with a literal conception of God, and then you slowly chisel away more and more properties from him based on rational inquiry that you finally end up with something so different that I have a lot of trouble seeing why you guys still call him that.
    See above.

    People are fighting over "ownership" of the word "God."
    Just like Christians of all denoms are today (and, actually, for the last 2000 years) fighting over ownership of the word "Christian."


    Can't we all at least agree on a definition of God? Is he a conscious entity? Does he hear prayers? Does he actively manipulate worldly events? There is so much variation in ideas about what God actually is that "God" ends up being whatever the hell you want him/it to be, so much that the theist vs. atheist distinction becomes all but meaningless.
    I just tend to see it as "believer in something divine" or "non-believer in the divine" (or "believer in no divine").

    And I shouldn't have to defend against these accusations of, "But how can you really be an atheist when you haven't disproved MY personal vague conception of God?...which happens to be that God is really just that good feeling I get when I have fulfilling experiences."
    Although that's simply an opinion of yours (i.e., your assess of the content of other people's beliefs, you couldn't prove anything), I agree that it's bs to demand that other people disprove us or prove themselves in order to have validity. Why does anyone have to prove anything at all, short of when faith starts to get invasive into the lives of others? In general, since none of us can prove diddly, it doesn't make sense to make our own judgment the standard that others have to meet ... although somehow we have to reconcile that with the idea that our faith guides our choices and is generally what we use as a basis for life (i.e., part of the evaluation criteria).

    So it seems to demand both an acceptance that we do give our own opinions more credibility and live according to them and evaluate other opinions by them, while at the same time a humility that we really can't prove anything that we believe and so it's really about our own personal faith that we share rather than impose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    I don't always agree with everything you say, but for this, I love you forever.
    lol, you know how to sweep an intellectual gal off her feet.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #40
    Member bbites's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Pointless? I don't think so. Anything could be considered "pointless" to one person and vital to someone else. I don't want to break into religious babble but, for me, life without Jesus is pointless. Faith is something that isn't based on logic. But I then I guess "logic" could just be a buzz word. Like I think was mentioned in another thread; we don't "know" anything. Science could be fake. [I]Everything[I] could be fake and somehow beyond our reasoning. Existence is the ultimate mystery. Okay sorry for the babble. Short answer to your question:

    No. I do not think it is pointless to believe in God.

Similar Threads

  1. Is it possible to like Meyers-Briggs without really believing in cognitive functions?
    By GranChi in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-27-2013, 07:34 PM
  2. Is it better to be well-rounded in function use?
    By William K in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 12:26 PM
  3. Is it possible to see spirituality without believeing in spirits...?
    By Clover in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-27-2009, 01:52 PM
  4. Is it going to kick off in London?
    By Kangirl in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 12:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO