User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 87

  1. #41
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    But this is not about belief, it is about direct experience. The atheist in my example experiences something being there, without being able to explain it through reason. The belief, or faith, essentially goes down to having trust in this "presence", that it will continue to be there, as it has been in the past; to rely on it, even if there's no way to prove that it will continue to manifest itself. .
    I do not see why the emotions you have experienced at that moment cannot be analyzed. The bottom line is you're experiencing something that you do not understand. No need to mythologize about it. Just leave it at that.


    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    No, I didn't mean it would support Christianity either, I'm trying to get down to the essence of religion. .
    I have defined religion earlier in this thread.

    The essence is a set of dictates that one ought not to question under no circumstances. These dictates instruct the individual on metaphysics, eschatology and ethics very comprehensively.

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    You wouldn't have a problem with such an experience, then? Wouldn't it collide a little with your atheism or your rational worldview? What is spirituality to you, if I may ask?.
    Where is the conflict between the two?



    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    Do you mean that Dostoyevsky's allegiance with Christianity is itself a superstition? ?.
    Yes, and more so how devout he was and the specific aspects of his creed, both religious and political that were very superstitious.


    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    They usually put the highest emphasis on personal experience though, and this is where I give them the most credit. I have heard far more than enough accounts of people being miraculously healed, having their prayers answered over and over again, literally having their lives saved by some great spiritual experience (where they saw Jesus), to be sure that at least some of them must be true (not to talk about such things as near-death-/out-of-the-body-experiences, past-life-regression, ghosts etc). Of course it's also cultural, a muslim would not see Jesus for example, but still... my point is that there are lots of religious people who are T, NT even, who find obvious proof for their faith. Not to mention how many those must have been in the past.?.
    Personal experience can be analyzed logically. In most cases they experience powerful sentiments that they mistake for real life occurences. As I said earlier, it would have been better to just leave things be that they cant explain clearly.


    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    You think there's a great difference between spirituality and religion, is that right? Religion as a kind of distortion of spirituality? It is a distinction I have made myself, even if I haven't been so careful with it lately.
    Correct.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #42
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Or are you misusing the label "fundamentalist" for orthodox Christians?
    No, fundamentalist religion is the only true kind of religion. Everything else is a distortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    BTW, the works of Kierkegaard and Tillich have been influential within conventional Christian traditions. In regards to Catholicism, two influential modern thinkers - von Balthasar and Pope John Paul II - held Kierkegaard in high regard.
    Irrelevant anecdote.




    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    As far as Christianity is concerned that's a difficult position to hold since the faith grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. In our other discussion, I've also made mention of the first century Christian text that called literalists dupes of the Devil. Let's not forget that many of the Church Fathers rejected a literalist approach, especially St. Augustine of Hippo.
    I really don't see the relevance. Mere anecdote.

    Religious people who do critical thinking are being irreligious.



    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The life of faith in itself is about overcoming internal conflicts, so I fail to understand your point here.
    You're confusing appearance for essence. It leads to inner conflict for reasons described above, but only says that it is all about overcoming the inner conflict.









    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well for one thing, providing a little balance and wider context to your treatments, since they seem to be incomplete on many levels.
    Or they only feel so to you, more anecdotes please.

    QUOTE=Peguy;322470]I'll also take the oppurtunity to correct your treatment of Kierkegaard. You claimed he was apolitical, when in fact he was a staunch supporter of Denmark's absolutist monarchy. One of his first writings was a pamphlet against female suffrage.[/QUOTE]


    We don't find this in his religious and what he called 'philosophical' works. That just is not relevant because his biography holds no place in a philosophical or theological discussion.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #43
    Member sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    I have defined religion earlier in this thread.

    The essence is a set of dictates that one ought not to question under no circumstances. These dictates instruct the individual on metaphysics, eschatology and ethics very comprehensively.
    This is a very narrow definition, and very unpractical as few people see it the same way. I don't know if one single religious person in the world would agree that this is the essence of their religiousity. The fact that "religion" and "spirituality" are by many seen as closely linked makes a clear definition even harder.

    Anyway, this was not our discussion. I suggest we leave out the words religion/spirituality, it is just becoming confusing. Our main discussion seems to be more about theism/atheism; whether it can be rational to be a theist, and my stance is that it can, even if Thinking doesn't usually lead the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing
    I do not see why the emotions you have experienced at that moment cannot be analyzed. The bottom line is you're experiencing something that you do not understand. No need to mythologize about it. Just leave it at that.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post320560

    If you return to my example with the atheist who become a theist, you will see that s/he doesn't mythologize at all. Suppose that everyone's an atheist at the time/place, and you go through the process as I described it. First you analyze the experience (and it doesn't have to be "emotion" exactly) like in the example, but you fail to understand it, and later you surrender to it during a life crisis, which obviously makes you feel much better. For the sake of practicality you give it a name - "God" - and since it adds a whole new quality to your life, you keep holding on to it, having faith in it.

    Now, what is irrational with this? It is not based on Thinking, but on experience, and this is what I think most theists most of all rely on.


    Personal experience can be analyzed logically. In most cases they experience powerful sentiments that they mistake for real life occurences. As I said earlier, it would have been better to just leave things be that they cant explain clearly.
    Of course you can simply reject these things if you want to, choose to think that there are logical explanations for everything (seems like a dogma to me), and I can only repeat myself: people are being miraculously healed, having religious/spiritual experiences that changes their lives completely, hearing a voice in their heads accurately predicting the future, etc. Sometimes experience is just experience. There is a dimension of life that cannot be reached through logic, and that is nothing I can logically prove or argue for.


    Peguy,

    "anecdote" or not, you have some good points there.

  4. #44
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    This is a very narrow definition,
    It aspired to define the way religion is used in our language. Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Judaism are representations of religion. I have defined such an essence.

    To ensure greatest precision in thought possible, definitions must be narrow. Otherwise we run the risk of commiting the informal logical fallacy of equivocation, or assinging 2 or more incompatible meanings to one term.

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    and very unpractical as few people see it the same way.,
    It does not matter how people see it, it only matters what is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    I don't know if one single religious person in the world would agree that this is the essence of their religiousity. The fact that "religion" and "spirituality" are by many seen as closely linked makes a clear definition even harder.
    This is a mistake for the reasons I have advanced earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    Anyway, this was not our discussion. I suggest we leave out the words religion/spirituality, it is just becoming confusing. Our main discussion seems to be more about theism/atheism; whether it can be rational to be a theist, and my stance is that it can, even if Thinking doesn't usually lead the way..
    If you are not analyzing logically, you do not have a reliable way of knowing what is rational. You may however embrace a rational choice by chance, yet given the myriad of possibilities of choices you may make, your chances are very slim.



    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    If you return to my example with the atheist who become a theist, you will see that s/he doesn't mythologize at all...
    Unless this thinker provides a sound argument for his theism (which noone has done so far), he is mythologizing. To mythologize means to utter false claims. Theism is false. Therefore whoever believes in theism mythologizes.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post323367



    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    Suppose that everyone's an atheist at the time/place, and you go through the process as I described it. First you analyze the experience (and it doesn't have to be "emotion" exactly) like in the example, but you fail to understand it, and later you surrender to it during a life crisis, which obviously makes you feel much better. For the sake of practicality you give it a name - "God" - and since it adds a whole new quality to your life, you keep holding on to it, having faith in it....
    It may benefit you to believe in God, and it may seem rational in this regard. Yet the decision itself to believe in God is irrational as no sound argument has been made in favor of his existence. I submit however, that believing in God in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because false beliefs about the world tend to generate unrealistic expectations within us, which inevitably lead to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments.





    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    Of course you can simply reject these things if you want to, choose to think that there are logical explanations for everything (seems like a dogma to me),....
    It is not a dogma because a dogma by definition means retention of an idea without applying logical analysis to reconsider the position. To be dogmatic and to refuse to reconsider your position are synonymous expressions. If you establish an argument based on rationale, you are free to reconsider it. You can logically analyze the proposition of whether or not all things can be explained logically. Which I do indeed. Therefore, it is not a dogma.


    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    and I can only repeat myself: people are being miraculously healed, having religious/spiritual experiences that changes their lives completely, hearing a voice in their heads accurately predicting the future, etc. Sometimes experience is just experience.),....

    People, both theists and atheists, conventionally religious and conventionally irreligious have their lives changed for the better because of the benign spiritual experiences. Such experiences do not require religious superstition for legitimation.

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    There is a dimension of life that cannot be reached through logic, and that is nothing I can logically prove or argue for..),....
    Whatever cannot be reached through logic is non-sense. Can you imagine a mathematical equation where we arrive at the correct answer, yet the explanation for how why we arrived there is mysteriously impossible to discover?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #45
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    ^100% agree with BWs post.

  6. #46
    Member sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    First of all, you might want to delete all those from the quotes in your previous post, I have no idea how you happened to put them there, but it looks kind of silly...

    And it seems like we have a lot of problems with definitions here, actually. You seem to have very clear definitions of a lot of words you use, which can be a strength, but also a problem as most other people, including me, use the words more overall. If I use a word in a more undefined way, and you in your answer give it a more narrow, specific meaning, then we have a problem. Partly a difference between Ni and Ti communication, I think? You always answer very Ti-ishly - nothing strange due to your type but in a sense it makes me feel like I can't reach you, that all the things I'm trying to communicate are being filtered through your Ti, which seems unfair as some of them are much more N than T.

    It does not matter how people see it, it only matters what is true.
    In a discussion like this, it matters that people somehow stay with the more commonly accepted meanings of a term, even if this will make it somewhat more vague, to avoid misunderstandings. This usually works. The option is that both parts agree on a definition before the discussion. I think your own definition is lacking, even if I don't know exactly what my own definition would be (and would I agree on yours, then yeah, religion sounds quite horrible).




    And I'm sure we could do a lot of work to define what it is to be rational, and what a dogma is, as it seems again that we use those words differently, but it doesn't interest me. This discussion is getting nowhere.


    It may benefit you to believe in God, and it may seem rational in this regard. Yet the decision itself to believe in God is irrational as no sound argument has been made in favor of his existence.
    Again, what I meant with belief or faith is the faith in that this which could be called God will continue to manifest itself, and that you can rely on it, even if it's not 100% certain. To dare to trust God, the way you trust the sun will rise the next morning even if you don't know. You haven't really understood my point: God in the example is essentially a personal experience, not something to prove or disprove. So obviously, God, or call it Presence or Tao or whatever, does exist for the person experiencing it.


    Whatever cannot be reached through logic is non-sense. Can you imagine a mathematical equation where we arrive at the correct answer, yet the explanation for how why we arrived there is mysteriously impossible to discover?
    (dissonance, do you really agree with this? )

    Well then, I think our discussion here has reached its end. I have tried to argue that some things cannot be reached through logic, but only through experience, and here we disagree. From your as I see it very narrow way of looking at the world, it seems impossible to reach you with anything outside your perspective. You seem to have made up your mind anyway, so I don't see why I should go on.

    Life is not a mathematical equation. It can be approached as one, and seeking only mathematical/logical answers, that is what you will find. But you're inevitable missing out on much.

  7. #47
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    (dissonance, do you really agree with this? )
    Hell yeah. If something doesn't have a logical explanation (and I can't think of my own), then I dismiss it as nonsense.

    We live in a physical world. Every atom in our body is subject to physical laws. Our bodies are merely interactions between trillions/quadrillions (I don't actually know how many) of atoms. It's not like any of those atoms can choose not to follow physical laws. The whole world/universe is a giant computer simulation.

    To think that there is something that makes the human mind unique is to delude yourself. We happen to specialize in a certain kind of information processing, just like every other animal.

    "God" or whatever has no place in the physical system that is the universe. If God is not physical, how does he affect what is physical? If God is physical, then he has no more control than any other part of the universe, namely, zero.

    If I wanted to, I could try to believe in something "greater" than what is physical, but I would just know I was lying to myself.

    As an INFJ, I've seen people come up with many weird ideas of how the world works just to make themselves comfortable. It makes me sad; they're all delusional. I choose not to be.

    When I was in preschool (I went to Jewish preschool), I wondered when the teachers were going to tell me God was fake just like the Tooth Fairy or Santa. It was so obviously the same logic. When it never happened, I learned something about human nature. It's easy to write off the Tooth Fairy because it's implausible, and even though the same logic applies to God, people don't care -- they just want to be comfortable in their fantasy land.

  8. #48
    Member sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Oh well, misunderstanding each other again, are we?

    Whether or not nature works under strict mechanical laws, what I mean is that sometimes reason can analyze all it wants to, and... well, I just keep repeating myself. I think I have said the same thing on the whole forum lately. That sometimes "reasoning" really misses the point.

  9. #49
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepless View Post
    Oh well, misunderstanding each other again, are we?

    Whether or not nature works under strict mechanical laws, what I mean is that sometimes reason can analyze all it wants to, and... well, I just keep repeating myself. I think I have said the same thing on the whole forum lately. That sometimes "reasoning" really misses the point.
    Well, yeah. I mean, you have you use induction (N) and deduction (T). If your reasoning misses the point, you have to widen your scope with N.

    But you asked me if I really agreed, and I said yes.

  10. #50
    Member sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    The thing is, BlueWing seems to think everything should have its starting point in logic. All feelings, experience and everything whatsoever. And as feelings naturally don't fit into the square logic reasoning, they are deemed as (surprise) illogical and therefore irrelevant.

Similar Threads

  1. How far divorced from books, film, TV and media portrayals is society becoming?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 01:21 AM
  2. [INFJ] INFJs and Single-Mindedness
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 06:39 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJs and Dating
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 06:42 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ and Compliments
    By chippinchunk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 09:20 AM
  5. [INFJ] INFJ and grief
    By tovlo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 06:49 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