User Tag List

Page 45 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3543444546 LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 458

Thread: INTP and hating religion.

  1. #441
    What is, is. Array Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010


    Learn to be more accepting of religion and less pretentious about your Atheism.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...

  2. #442
    Senior Member Array InsatiableCuriosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    It's probably because INTs, in general, tend to apply analytical reasoning to everything in a vicious manner that we tend to dislike church. Plus, as you said, we're not very social or generally optimistic (as in fact, we tend to be very cynical). Thus, church and the superficial smiling and false emotions which go along with it just tends to throw us off. We INTPs generally aren't made to see life from some false rosy glow; we want to know what is truly driving the world. Hence, logic tends to be used like a knife to cut away at anything and everything which doesn't add up. Therefore, we can totally reason away all of the happy aspects of life which simply ultimately lack real meaning. This may lead to nihilism, or something similar, but always something realistic and based on what logically exists. So we just tend to want to be around intelligent persons, as we are—not a bunch of rather "mindlessly social" drones who actually do tend to believe anything they are told.

    At least that's how I tend to view the INTPs general relationship to society. I've been there, done that. I destroyed the concept of God, internally, through logic. I've reasoned away all of the fancy wishful thinking hopeful perceptions a human being could have toward this world (which I've come to conclude is absurd and meaningless). I've decided people are generally morons (as George Carlin did). So a church is the LAST place I ever want to be, truly wasting my time. I could masturbate, or play a few video games, instead. And life's more pleasurable and less logically dissonant that way.
    You might want to visit this thread and dwell on the differences.
    "Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."
    — Richard P. Feynman

    "Never tell a person a thing is impossible. G*d/the Universe may have been waiting all this time for someone ignorant enough of the impossibility to do just that thing."
    author unknown

  3. #443
    Banned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Religion was of great purpose hundreds of years ago, but not anymore. Time to evolve people, chop chop. Keep religion for the sake of culture, but don't obsess it, please.

  4. #444


    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    Learn to be more accepting of religion...
    Give me one good reason.

  5. #445


    Do you mind people questioning your Atheism? Or rather when/if they do what is the first thought that passes through your mind?

  6. #446


    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    You might want to visit this thread and dwell on the differences.
    But a righteous person can come off self-righteous, if others either a) do not understand the basis on which that person feels justified in being morally correct, or b) assume that the person is completely certain of their righteousness, when in fact they aren't. Thus, one who perceives another as self-righteous may be confused, ignorant, or presumptuous. The only way to truly know if someone is self-righteous is if you can know with certainty that they absolutely believe, with wholehearted certainty, that they are correct (which in and of itself doesn't necessarily make someone self-righteous, logically speaking) and then on top of that, that they are also unjustified in their convictions, beliefs, or sense of moral superiority (or any sort of superiority).

    Thus, when questioning whether someone is or is not self-righteous, we must first investigate the true basis for their sense of superiority. Are they justified or not? If they are, then they are merely righteous. If they aren't, then they are self-righteous.

    Also, I've noticed a distinction between the words "arrogant" and "conceited." An arrogant person isn't always akin to a conceited person. Arrogance, in and of itself, isn't always based on a notion of personal superiority or greatness or awesomeness. Often times, arrogance stems from a notion of righteousness (or a confidence which stems from the intellectual notion that one is justified in what they hold to be true). "I'm fairly certain that I'm correct, and I don't really care what other people think." Einstein had this sort of arrogance, along with many other INTPs (and INTJs).

    But this is mere intellectual confidence, when boiled down deeply, not a conceited sense of self-worth, or egoism, or narcissism (although many INTs do tend to find some level of pride in their abilities and nature). A truly conceited person feels as though they are "special." Everyone else in the world doesn't match up to them and they are worthy of respect and fame. They stare at themselves in the mirror, congratulate themselves for accomplishments, and say things like "Wow, I'm so smart." An arrogant person, on the other hand, may simply feel justified in believing themselves smarter or more moral righteous than someone else, on well-founded, intellectual grounds. A conceited person doesn't care for justification; they simply take it for granted that they are awesome people, not like anyone else.

    So, I am well aware of the subtle and minute distinctions between these various words, and I'm highly independent-minded, strong-willed, and confident in any statements I make. I'm honest and direct. So, if it comes off self-righteous, I really don't care, because that's only a superficial perception, and nothing more. Most people can't back up their claims, but I'm sure you'd find it difficult proving that I've made these statements on shaky, shallow grounds. I've put much thought into this, and I therefore feel confident in my assessment of the situation. If the truth offends someone, so be it. It's not my intention, and it's not in my interest, to babysit people. If I feel that religion is this or that, or that emotional people are this or that, or that a certain actions is wrong according to a particular principle, which may offend someone who disagrees, then too bad. It's all about honesty.

    If you disagree, hopefully your reasons are logically justified, because mine most likely are (as I logically scrutinize everything I think or say long in advance). So that's it. I give honest statements. I dislike dressing up the truth for anyone. To my mind, church is an awful place and the people who go there are nuts and incomprehensible, illogical freaks who often times tend to lack independence and freedom of thought (which logically explains why most of them are there in the first place, rather than somewhere else possibly expanding their minds or learning something worthwhile). And good luck persuading me otherwise. Logic doesn't sit well with a person who would attempt to argue to the contrary. Church participation is illogical. But if people wish to be illogical, that's their choice. I merely call it like I see it.


  7. #447


    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    Do you mind people questioning your Atheism? Or rather when/if they do what is the first thought that passes through your mind?
    If someone questions my atheism as if I'm an alien, or some kind of hedonistic heathen who lacks moral who is going to go out and murder a bunch of people for not believing in God, as if I'm a freak who has a disease that must be treated very carefully, I am annoyed by that fact. But do I get bothered that they have asked me? No.

    I'll honestly tell anyone anything they want to know. However, if their motivation for asking me is because they can't possibly understand how another person can hold different beliefs, then I'm pretty annoyed by them. So, I'll usually just answer their questions and explain why I don't believe in God. Usually, they'll react odd (because they can't logically refute my position) and will slowly move away and disengage from the conversation.

    And the first thought that passes through my mind is, "Here we go again, now I have to sit here and explain why I'm different from these judgmental, narrow-minded people who assume everyone should be the same, and treat me like some ostracized freak from another country (or better yet, another planet)."

    Anything else you want to know?

  8. #448
    Member Array Stol11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    Glad to see so many sensible agnostics/atheists/free-thinkers/humanists etc. I'm an ENTJ and you won't find a person more adverse to religion. I think the vast majority of NT's are less inclined towards religion.

  9. #449


    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    For me the true meaning of righteousness is the person who is a living example of doing the right thing but makes no claims to it.

    Your definition in fact is another aspect of self-righteousness.
    I think righteousness can be done or claimed. What matters if 'if' the person's actions or claims or behavior is 'justified.' If it isn't justified, then someone is self-righteous. Self-righteous means "excessively pious." Obviously, an excess of piousness is not justified, as a person merely needs to keep a moderate awareness of their righteousness (if in fact they feel justified in their righteousness).

    Hence, self-righteous is more akin to "conceited" and "narcissistic." These traits aren't usually justified, but are often times due to the person's inflated sense of self, or ego. A righteous person, on the other hand, can come off arrogant, if they feel entirely confident, secure, and justified in their position. So arrogance need not necessarily mean that person isn't righteous, but more self-righteous.

    Additionally, insolence isn't always a bad thing. Blatant, bold, and emphatic statements aren't always to be assumed "excessive" or "unnecessary" or "unjustified" or "false." Often times, it's merely the writer's way of expressing themselves. This can be viewed as arrogant, self-righteous, and big-headed, but all that logically matters is if the person is actually justified.

    This brings us to another aspect of this entire matter. If someone is justified in feeling righteous and acts accordingly, should they? My personal opinion is that someone may express themselves however they want, if indeed they are justified. If they aren't, they make themselves look stupid, while annoying everyone else. Thus, I don't necessarily consider bold expressions and claims and statements to be necessarily offensive by default. Bold actions, claims, expressions, and statements are only offensive when they are entirely unfounded and unjustified.

  10. #450

Similar Threads

  1. Hating On People In The Entertainment Community
    By Gloriana in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 01:59 PM
  2. Hating a character or celebrity
    By polikujm in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 12:32 PM
  3. [Fi] Fi-types hating Fi
    By Xellotath in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 08:16 PM
  4. The reasons for hating Dane Cook...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 06:21 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