INTP and hating religion.

[Robert165]

Proof is fallible in the first place; so progress may be quite static. Maybe.

whatever your criticism with rationality or emperical evedince, using the two methods is the only way to make a final determination about, well, anything.

Cogito ergo sum.

yeah, it doesnt work. if you're an illusion and you think you're real, then whatever you think you are, is false.

The concept of hell has already been addressed.

no, it really hasn't. i've heard lots of excuses being made and people geting all offended. however, no one has been able to remove it from the bible.

 

[Ginkgo]

yeah, it doesnt work.

Neither do American public education systems, apparently.

 

[Robert165]

Neither do American public education systems, apparently.

cant think of anything else to say?

 

[Ginkgo]

cant think of anything else to say?

“The reality of the other person lies not in what he reveals to you, but what he cannot reveal to you. Therefore, if you would understand him, listen not to what he says, but rather to what he does not say.” - Kahlil Gibran

“Once you begin to believe there is help ''out there,'' you will know it to be true.” - Saint Bartholomew

Good night.

 

[Haphazard]

1, 2, & 5 assume there isn't a clear general revelation in view of which men are without excuse for their unbelief.

3 & 4 are more difficult, and are probably among those things that cannot be known without additional revelation. God could save such persons, but would he? I like to think he does.

Perhaps it is too early but I have no idea what you said in that first part.

I don't know. I would say crises of faith are good things. They prompt thinking and re-evaluation. However, this perhaps fits with your idea that people have stopped thinking in this new revival; I mean, what would happen if someone started thinking, but in their thinking, got too distracted and walked into the street as the light turned red, and got hit by a bus and died?

It's strange. It's like Christianity puts a clock on you. If you don't do something before you die, you end up in eternal hellfire for the rest of your life. I don't know. Thinking too much about stuff you have to do before you die seems unhealthy.

 

[Snuggletron]

Seems to be a lot of focus on just one religion (or at least the major 3). They all stemmed from not having any other way to explain things years ago. But it would appear people still rely on faith for personal reasons. That is fine. It's just generally the INTP has a need to make rational sense so a lot of them don't find closure on the idea of having a religious faith.

I've also found a lot of people just go along with it because of tradition and they think about it too deeply to give it much concern, but the INTP does because they're individualistic and analysts. Everyone draws from external stimuli, the INTP just wants to make sure their ideas are drawn from the things that make the most sense. Religion and faith do not make rational sense. The INTPs ideas might not be original but they probably try and contain more truth.

 

[Snow Turtle]

no, see, you have (1) heaven and (2) hell and then you die and where you go when you die depends upon the "choice" you made about god while alive.

When it comes down to it Robert. You're just too caught up on a word. A word that you don't fully understand, nor do I understand. You dismiss the fact that there are lots of different interpretation on what hell actually is, and whether it's actually that much of a negative thing.

For you.

It's basically

Christian: Hell is bad.
Athiests: I'm choosing to go to hell.
You: That's just wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Why?

Frame it all in another way. The story that many christians often use: A child decides to leave his father because he doesn't believe in him anymore, this can be the same thing as the child choosing hell over love (God)

Now the only thing I'll agree with you here is that according to that story, he may return after having left. That hell should not be an eternal place of damnation. But as I've said over and over again, nobody knows for certain what hell is and whether it's travelling to there is a permenant single-way destination.

Some christians argue that it's not possible to return once a choice has been made, and I see some logic in that, but then I'd agree with you that it seems unfair to have millions of people have to make that choice before death. I'd be more inclined to believe that God is actually a forgiving individual that lets people make their own choices, once they have experienced him and are doing so in a rational mind (i.e. People losing faith in God when humanities is evil/deaths). For God to blaim these individual for being human seems kind of... wrong considering they are his own creation.

 

[Snow Turtle]

There is an amount to be gained from having even a speck of doubt in doctors and elevators. There is also an amount to be gained from having faith in them. When the latter outweighs the former, you make an investment.

The question in the context of the OP is: Do you invest in this life, or the next? The religious individual finds that he may invest in both by having faith in God; for the amount sacrificed is minimal in comparison the amount gained.

Would this be a good reason to believe?

Sounds like an argument someone would use followed by Pascals Wagers. You can't force yourself to believe.

yeah, it doesnt work. if you're an illusion and you think you're real, then whatever you think you are, is false.

What?

If everything in the world is false. What remains? There is thought.

Can that thought be an illusion? Sure. But where is it coming from? Something must be real.

You're talking about Brain in a Vat which while the person is an illusion. There's still a brain behind it all. There must always be something creating thought. It's like the matrix/vanilla sky and everything else.

The only way you'd be able to argue that is if you claim that we're just programmed AI. But what then defines real? are programmed AIs any less real? When you think about it. The human body from an athiestic point of view, is just a biological robot that is programmed. Current understanding of consciousness is that it's just random neurons firing.

End of the day, the only thing that we can be certain is that thought exists. Whether we'd be biologically or artificially programmed.

 

[Ginkgo]

Would this be a good reason to believe?

Sounds like an argument someone would use followed by Pascals Wagers. You can't force yourself to believe.

Right. Nor can you force anyone else to believe. It's a natural process.

What?

If everything in the world is false. What remains? There is thought.

Can that thought be an illusion? Sure. But where is it coming from? Something must be real.

You're talking about Brain in a Vat which while the person is an illusion. There's still a brain behind it all. There must always be something creating thought. It's like the matrix/vanilla sky and everything else.

The only way you'd be able to argue that is if you claim that we're just programmed AI. But what then defines real? are programmed AIs any less real? When you think about it. The human body from an athiestic point of view, is just a biological robot that is programmed. Current understanding of consciousness is that it's just random neurons firing.

End of the day, the only thing that we can be certain is that thought exists. Whether we'd be biologically or artificially programmed.

Exactly. Logically, you may give the premises "I think, therefore I am"; and it may sound contradictory as both premises contain "I", and we are trying to prove the existence of I. If you really want to be nit-picky, then you must say "Thought, therefore I am". However, after the entailment, you cannot deduce anything about yourself except for the fact that you think. Even if you are an illusion, you are the victim of the illusion; and your thoughts are convoluted by it.

Just snatched this off of Wikipedia:

Neurophysiological studies in awake, behaving monkeys point to advanced cortical areas in prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes as carriers of neuronal correlates of consciousness. Christof Koch and Francis Crick argue that neuronal mechanisms of consciousness are intricately related to prefrontal cortex — cortical areas involved in higher cognitive function, affect, behavioral control, and planning. Rodolfo Llinas proposes that consciousness results from recurrent thalamo-cortical resonance where the specific thalamocortical systems (content) and the non-specific (centromedial thalamus) thalamocortical systems (context) interact in the gamma band frequency via time coincidence.

Uhh.. yeah. I wish I could form an opinion about this; but the "time-coincidence" part is intriguing.

 

[Ginkgo]

Thinking too much about stuff you have to do before you die seems unhealthy.

Couldn't one make an even bolder argument for the atheists' perspective on this? To the atheist, all you have is yourself and what you do with yourself in the given allotment of lifetime. This, coupled with a "I have to save humanity before I die" complex could be even more overwhelming. Meh, I digress; the same mentality can be had from an evangelic religion.

 

[Robert165]

When it comes down to it Robert. You're just too caught up on a word. A word that you don't fully understand, nor do I understand. You dismiss the fact that there are lots of different interpretation on what hell actually is, and whether it's actually that much of a negative thing.

For you.

It's basically

Christian: Hell is bad.
Athiests: I'm choosing to go to hell.
You: That's just wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Why?

Frame it all in another way. The story that many christians often use: A child decides to leave his father because he doesn't believe in him anymore, this can be the same thing as the child choosing hell over love (God)

Now the only thing I'll agree with you here is that according to that story, he may return after having left. That hell should not be an eternal place of damnation. But as I've said over and over again, nobody knows for certain what hell is and whether it's travelling to there is a permenant single-way destination.

Some christians argue that it's not possible to return once a choice has been made, and I see some logic in that, but then I'd agree with you that it seems unfair to have millions of people have to make that choice before death. I'd be more inclined to believe that God is actually a forgiving individual that lets people make their own choices, once they have experienced him and are doing so in a rational mind (i.e. People losing faith in God when humanities is evil/deaths). For God to blaim these individual for being human seems kind of... wrong considering they are his own creation.

those are all relatively nice thoughts, compared to what is found in the bible. but the point is, none of that is stated in the bible.

 

[Snow Turtle]

those are all relatively nice thoughts, compared to what is found in the bible. but the point is, none of that is stated in the bible.

Do you actually know what is in the bible? I'm inclined to say no.
Can you really argue about something while having little knowledge on the subject matter? Why not just admit that you don't know that much about christianity apart from surface understanding. If you truly want to argue against it, then you should research more, but you don't even want to dedicate time to finding out whether you truly do understand.

You choose to ignore the whole discussion on the nature of hell and most importantly why christians have different ideas regarding it's nature. Doesn't that speak volumes? That the issue is not black and white.

Fine it doesn't matter anymore. Believe whatever you want to believe about christianity. I'll just leave it with this. The scientific method tries to understand things/entertain alternative positions without placing emotional judgement on things.

 

[Robert165]

Do you actually know what is in the bible? I'm inclined to think you know it about as much as me, which is very little.

Once again... You choose to ignore the whole discussion on the nature of hell and most importantly why christians have different ideas regarding it's nature. Doesn't that speak volumes? That the issue is not black and white.

Fine it doesn't matter anymore. Believe whatever you want to believe about christianity.

the issue is black and white
you either agree with what the bible says, or you don't
to disagree with the bible, and still be christian
seems pretty silly to me

 

[Ginkgo]

the issue is black and white
you either agree with what the bible says, or you don't
to disagree with the bible, and still be christian
seems pretty silly to me

You're fighting a Fundamentalist straw-man that seems to dissolve and manifest at will. The Bible has very strong historical context; therefore what it has to say should be known by that context. Furthermore, there are symbolic connotations and underlying etiologies that descend below what you pick from the Bible at face-value. The Bible isn't just a book with words written on it. It's a lexicon, it's a guide, and it's a historical document.

 

[Robert165]

You're fighting a Fundamentalist straw-man that seems to dissolve and manifest at will. The Bible has very strong historical context; therefore what it has to say should be known by that context. Furthermore, there are symbolic connotations and underlying etiologies that descend below what you pick from the Bible at face-value. The Bible isn't just a book with words written on it. It's a lexicon, it's a guide, and it's a historical document.

no, the bible says what it says. its really interesting that you don't dispute what is written there. you just come up with real wordy reasons why we should ignore it.

 

[Nyx]

no, the bible says what it says. its really interesting that you don't dispute what is written there. you just come up with real wordy reasons why we should ignore it.

Lol. You should read G.K. Chesterton. BTW Christianity is not solely based on the Bible, but tradition as well.

I'll write more later.

ALSO, undertaking studying the Bible is serious business. In fact, you would be advised to study the Second Temple period of Judaism and learn Greek.

 

[Ginkgo]

no, the bible says what it says. its really interesting that you don't dispute what is written there. you just come up with real wordy reasons why we should ignore it.

"Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, )."

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.”

“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” - G.K. Chesterton

 

[Robert165]

"Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, )."

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.”

“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” - G.K. Chesterton

the second 2 dont matter so much

 

[Ginkgo]

the second 2 dont matter so much

It's a shame you think so.

 

[Robert165]

It's a shame you think so.

ah yes, becasue focsuing on something else really makes john 3:16 an acceptable moral doctorine