[Other] NFs, would you marry an atheist?

[funkadelik]

Now now Allegorystory.. misquoting people and flinging out some hyperbolic interpretations is not only NOT logical, it's also Not nice.

But its okay, because ENTP children are my FAVORITE! Just know that someday, when you get big, you'll have to include some of your own ideas too. =)

Hmmm...this smells a lot like avoidance of the subject at hand.

Just kidding. I don't really want to pick a fight with you about this. Just don't write off atheists like that, kay? It's not nice, either.

 

[Santosha]

but if the person doesn't force that belief on you, and you don't force your beliefs on them why would it matter, if they don't believe in any deities?

Because for me, a life-mate would also have to be a mind-mate, and I don't believe I could understand a mind unwilling to conceed that there is a possibility something exists past death, just like there is a possibility it does not.

 

[kyuuei]

^ For me.. this would be of like-minds. I am spiritual.. but I am okay with someone else not being so. I just want them to have come to that conclusion on their own, and as their own personal truth.. for them to know there is no way to tell for sure would mean that they acknowledge that they are atheist for their own personal benefit. Just like being spiritual is for my own personal benefit.

 

[prplchknz]

Because for me, a life-mate would also have to be a mind-mate, and I don't believe I could understand a mind unwilling to conceed that there is a possibility something exists past death, just like there is a possibility it does not.

my parents have very different view of things and they've been married 26 years, but they respect each other's beliefs. They don't force their belief system on the other.

^ For me.. this would be of like-minds. I am spiritual.. but I am okay with someone else not being so. I just want them to have come to that conclusion on their own, and as their own personal truth.. for them to know there is no way to tell for sure would mean that they acknowledge that they are atheist for their own personal benefit. Just like being spiritual is for my own personal benefit.

exactly. I knew I liked you.

 

[mochajava]

I'm an atheist, just for the record.

 

[Arclight]

What if.......... Love is the religion?? Then if a woman loves me back, this means we are practicing the religion of love. We are it's clerics and priests and also it's congregation. Our bodies are our altars of worship, our sacrifice is to each other.

We would not be atheists then, I would think.

 

[Amargith]

Biblical accounts present multiple incarnations of god (depending on the writer). Once they gave God a "proper" name however, there are connotations of pantheism to it (not that it is or isn't.. I'm just saying. It's open to interpretation: YHVH/Yahweh. From the verb "to be". The one who is, etc.. In the famous "burning bush" story with Moses, Moses asks for a name and the voice spells it out for him: "I am that I am".). Not to get into a debate or anything, but I always thought it was a lot more interesting than this old guy in the clouds concept. There isn't much of that in the bible itself (there's stories of God taking on the form of mysterious desert wanderers though). I'm not sure where the old man thing started. It could have been a combination of Greek/Biblical/Norse concepts, once Christian artists started depicting God that way specifically..

Hehe, I know, I was playing about and mirroring his own reply. Paganism isn't all about frolicking in the woods with animal spirits either, but it's often depicted as such. The man up in the clouds is the christian version of this

 

[EcK]

What if.......... Love is the religion?? Then if a woman loves me back, this means we are practicing the religion of love. We are it's clerics and priests and also it's congregation. Our bodies are our altars of worship, our sacrifice is to each other.

We would not be atheists then, I would think.

hippie

 

[Glycerine]

I am an ENFJ who is open to religion but really religious people exhaust me after awhile. I am an agnostic with evolutionary leanings. I believe in good, evil, and karma so please don't think no religion= amoral or no morals. I voted yes. I might even marry s religious person as long as he didn't try to convert me. I would support his religiosity as long as he accepted mine. In a way, I believe in pluralism.

 

[Emectar]

Since most NFs have a tendency to believe in ''something bigger'', i was wondering if you would necessarily expect the same from your special one.
Thoughts?

Edit: Please answer the poll, if you don't mind .

Totally. Im an atheist myself. I dont need to believe in a god. I guess for me, the higher thing that gives me faith is that i believe people are basically good.

 

[Alchemilla]

I'm also an INFJ atheist. You could call me spiritual, but I am in no way a supernaturalist.

Atheist means "non-theist" in the same way asymmetrical means "non-symmetrical." It's not really a label that tells you what the atheist does believe in, just what they don't believe in. For example, some atheists do believe in "something else" such as life after death or reiki or The Secret or whatever. Other atheists (like me), not so much.

In my experience an atheist worldview can be rich, meaningful and poetic. It might seem counter intuitive, but I have felt so much more spiritual since embracing naturalistic atheism. Each to their own!

 

[Caesar]

Why is the NT thread asking about theists and the NF thread asking about atheists? Is this some sort of typecasting? Because I meet atheists and theists at the same rate for both NFs and NTs.

 

[Elfa]

Why not? I'm an atheist.

I'm also an INFJ atheist. You could call me spiritual, but I am in no way a supernaturalist.

Atheist means "non-theist" in the same way asymmetrical means "non-symmetrical." It's not really a label that tells you what the atheist does believe in, just what they don't believe in. For example, some atheists do believe in "something else" such as life after death or reiki or The Secret or whatever. Other atheists (like me), not so much.

In my experience an atheist worldview can be rich, meaningful and poetic. It might seem counter intuitive, but I have felt so much more spiritual since embracing naturalistic atheism. Each to their own!

I like so much the way you put it! Life can be seen in a meaningful and beautiful way, it doesn't need a religion to be wonderful... And, strangely, I feel very spiritual that way...

 

[Elfboy]

Why is the NT thread asking about theists and the NF thread asking about atheists? Is this some sort of typecasting? Because I meet atheists and theists at the same rate for both NFs and NTs.

well, statistically speaking, ENFJs are the most likely to believe in a higher spiritual power and INTJs are the least likely, followed I believe by INTPs and ENTJs.

 

[Serendipity]

An Atheist must be someone that strictly believes in the assumption that there is no god.
Whether you attach another label after or before it is up to you but since theology is the study of god - literally translated from greek. Then Theist must be someone who believes in the script of god, in one way or another and an Atheist must be someone who denies and explicitly disbelieves in godly scriptures.

At least, that is my reasoning. If it is a balanced and mature human being then whether or not being an Atheist or Theist would matter much as long as there's some sort of common ground upon which to share. I have my doubts about dating a theist or atheist but that is because I've met such fanatical members of either faction rather than well adjusted companions.

 

[Beargryllz]

An Atheist must be someone that strictly believes in the assumption that there is no god.

This is simply not true. One can be an atheist, and strictly believe that there is no god, or an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any god, but does not presume that the existence of a god is impossible. Some atheists have much more faith in their beliefs than other atheists, some are very sure, some less sure. But an atheist does not have to assume that the existence of a god is impossible.

 

[Serendipity]

This is simply not true. One can be an atheist, and strictly believe that there is no god, or an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any god, but does not presume that the existence of a god is impossible. Some atheists have much more faith in their beliefs than other atheists, some are very sure, some less sure. But an atheist does not have to assume that the existence of a god is impossible.

Which is why I added that you can add an additional label before or after being an atheist.

Was my reasoning incorrect if such a rule was added? I find most definitions very black and white, as it should be or else why bother categorizing? There's sub-definitions and head titles and what-not to get around the semantics but that's still labels before or after the word.

I feel you are missing my point, or I am missing yours. My scale is Atheist --------- Agnostic ------ Theist. There might be more words between, I bet there is but I am unaware of them at this time.



I'm not saying that one definition should hold true forever. People change and definitions with them. We add more, remove some and edit ones that are still in use. The reason I tried to add my reasoning behind the explicit definition of an atheist is because I wanted there to be some context to fit it with. Not taken in simplicity and deny what that simple sentence spoke of for the reasoning that followed.


EDIT: I don't run around and label people. They label themselves. When I hear of a label, I'll ask them what they mean by it and I'll ask how they act around it and the details and what not. I cannot tell them their definition is incorrect but after asking, I can engage in conversation if I use the definition they have explained to me. This was my reasoning behind Atheism. I wonder, what is yours? How does if differ?

 

[Beargryllz]

Which is why I added that you can add an additional label before or after being an atheist.

Was my reasoning incorrect if such a rule was added? I find most definitions very black and white, as it should be or else why bother categorizing? There's sub-definitions and head titles and what-not to get around the semantics but that's still labels before or after the word.

I feel you are missing my point, or I am missing yours. My scale is Atheist --------- Agnostic ------ Theist. There might be more words between, I bet there is but I am unaware of them at this time.



I'm not saying that one definition should hold true forever. People change and definitions with them. We add more, remove some and edit ones that are still in use. The reason I tried to add my reasoning behind the explicit definition of an atheist is because I wanted there to be some context to fit it with. Not taken in simplicity and deny what that simple sentence spoke of for the reasoning that followed.


EDIT: I don't run around and label people. They label themselves. When I hear of a label, I'll ask them what they mean by it and I'll ask how they act around it and the details and what not. I cannot tell them their definition is incorrect but after asking, I can engage in conversation if I use the definition they have explained to me. This was my reasoning behind Atheism. I wonder, what is yours? How does if differ?

I don't see the need for a scale of Atheist ----- agnostic ------ theist. Closer to 2 distinct islands, with a variety of flavors on each. For example, an implicit atheist certainly does not have to make a strict assertion that there is no god, yet he also absolutely cannot be labeled a theist, because the implicit atheist is absolutely "without god". There is no rejection, there is no faith, there is nothing special reinforcing the belief, because there is no belief. Neither is this individual necessarily agnostic, because the individual would not necessarily deem the truth unknowable.

 

[Serendipity]

I don't see the need for a scale of Atheist ----- agnostic ------ theist. Closer to 2 distinct islands, with a variety of flavors on each. For example, an implicit atheist certainly does not have to make a strict assertion that there is no god, yet he also absolutely cannot be labeled a theist, because the implicit atheist is absolutely "without god". There is no rejection, there is no faith, there is nothing special reinforcing the belief, because there is no belief. Neither is this individual necessarily agnostic, because the individual would not necessarily deem the truth unknowable.

Ok. No scale.
Even if there's plenty of thick beaks on one island with a clear variety even though all have very thick beaks and on the other island there's thin beaks with yet as many varieties as the earlier island; They are different and there is a system. Whether or not you make that system up at the spot, whether or not you combine many systems but there's still a system if we are going to apply human value systems. Whether these being rational or feeling. In one of these systems, I claim that there's a definition of atheism that is clear-cut disbelief. Mainly because human values require some sort of understanding. Whether for itself and/or others. Then there's Atheism strain B, which isn't clear-cut atheism but Lala-atheism.

You are nitpicking instead of reading what I wrote. Or reading intentions where I haven't written them...

Somehow, you are agreeing with me and yet not.


I have met one other who tells me there is no belief. I cannot fathom to live without belief. I find will to be a kind of belief. Hope being a kind of belief. Facts reside on a certain aspect of belief. This is probably the one thing I dislike about myself for I feel belief and I cannot separate it from life and life. The intuitive leaps are belief. Patterns that aren't completely consistent at first sight but made consistent to find some sort of meaning, is belief. Me taking a glass of water and pouring it down my throat is part of my belief that I can do that. That is my trouble and that is why I cannot understand what you are speaking of. I am aware that it sounds silly. I can disprove myself rationally in text, or so I think, but I cannot create the insight for myself. It's not tangible, it's part of freedom. It's will of being. If I do not believe in myself then why continue? Then I have to either start believing in others or simply not acknowledge them. Can you understand this perspective? I cannot yours, yet. I'm most probably agnostic btw.

 

[Beargryllz]

Ok. No scale.
Even if there's plenty of thick beaks on one island with a clear variety even though all have very thick beaks and on the other island there's thin beaks with yet as many varieties as the earlier island; They are different and there is a system. Whether or not you make that system up at the spot, whether or not you combine many systems but there's still a system if we are going to apply human value systems. Whether these being rational or feeling. In one of these systems, I claim that there's a definition of atheism that is clear-cut disbelief. Mainly because human values require some sort of understanding. Whether for itself and/or others. Then there's Atheism strain B, which isn't clear-cut atheism but Lala-atheism.

You are nitpicking instead of reading what I wrote. Or reading intentions where I haven't written them...

Somehow, you are agreeing with me and yet not.


I have met one other who tells me there is no belief. I cannot fathom to live without belief. I find will to be a kind of belief. Hope being a kind of belief. Facts reside on a certain aspect of belief. This is probably the one thing I dislike about myself for I feel belief and I cannot separate it from life and life. The intuitive leaps are belief. Patterns that aren't completely consistent at first sight but made consistent to find some sort of meaning, is belief. Me taking a glass of water and pouring it down my throat is part of my belief that I can do that. That is my trouble and that is why I cannot understand what you are speaking of. I am aware that it sounds silly. I can disprove myself rationally in text, or so I think, but I cannot create the insight for myself. It's not tangible, it's part of freedom. It's will of being. If I do not believe in myself then why continue? Then I have to either start believing in others or simply not acknowledge them. Can you understand this perspective? I cannot yours, yet. I'm most probably agnostic btw.

I understand, and I think you might be taking "no belief" too far in your assessment here. We can't have beliefs about something we don't or can't think about. There are people out there, whom I have never met, that will have beliefs about concepts I will never hear about. My "beliefs" about these concepts are implicitly absent. The easiest way I can explain it would be to pose a question. Does the absence of belief imply belief of absence? This is the difference between implicit atheism and explicit atheism. There are some who do not believe in god who would state "I do not believe in any god", and others who do not believe in any god, but couldn't say this, because they are detached from the concept and therefore unable to have a belief about god(s).