[NT] Christian NTs

[Coriolis]

And how is confidence in your perception different from belief ? I mean for an ethical and morale guidance I dont need to necessarily stick to religion, there are a lot of books who talk about it as well.

The simplest distinction is that confidence is based upon objective evidence that, while insufficient to establish something with certainty, is enough to support a course of action. Belief, by contrast, typically rests on some subjective consideration: I like it, I feel good about it, it aligns with my values. If I have confidence in someone, it means I have a reasonable certainty that they will perform in a certain way, be reliable/dependable, able to accomplish something. If I believe in someone, it is more a commentary on their intentions, sense of ethics/morality/integrity/etc. If I say "I have confidence in my beliefs", I mean that the ideas/principles/etc. that seem subjectively "right" to me are backed up by a decent amount of evidence. I realize other people sometimes use the words interchangeably. Obviously the two are related, but not the same. I realize other people sometimes use the two words interchangeably, but I do not.

You are right, though, that religion is not the only source of moral or ethical guidance. I have made that point myself on several threads now.

And I think and I am not alone with that that the american church has become as fundamental as its enemies its opposing and I am just having a careful eye on that and hope it wont play out bad for you. Cause I like you and am not your enemy.

You are correct here as well. American churches are often as hard on believers in other religions as on atheists. Christian vs. Christian arguments can get as heated and nasty as Christian vs. other spirituality, or believer vs. atheist. So much for following our "higher selves".

 

[Helios]

While I disagree with the point you made in the other post, that was a pretty clever way to use the passage.

Thanks, but why do you disagree with the point I made? Believing in benevolent "super natural" beings is something we can forgive in children, but not so much in adults. That millions of people are walking around in my country truly believing in, for example, "angels" worries me.

 

[entropie]

The simplest distinction is that confidence is based upon objective evidence that, while insufficient to establish something with certainty, is enough to support a course of action. Belief, by contrast, typically rests on some subjective consideration: I like it, I feel good about it, it aligns with my values. If I have confidence in someone, it means I have a reasonable certainty that they will perform in a certain way, be reliable/dependable, able to accomplish something. If I believe in someone, it is more a commentary on their intentions, sense of ethics/morality/integrity/etc. If I say "I have confidence in my beliefs", I mean that the ideas/principles/etc. that seem subjectively "right" to me are backed up by a decent amount of evidence. I realize other people sometimes use the words interchangeably. Obviously the two are related, but not the same. I realize other people sometimes use the two words interchangeably, but I do not.

You are right, though, that religion is not the only source of moral or ethical guidance. I have made that point myself on several threads now.

Ya, glad you mentioned the differences that was my point basically. In german there are like 4 or 5 words for confidence and everyone aims at a different one of the definitions you mentioned

You are correct here as well. American churches are often as hard on believers in other religions as on atheists. Christian vs. Christian arguments can get as heated and nasty as Christian vs. other spirituality, or believer vs. atheist. So much for following our "higher selves".

You all definitly dont have to get me on the wrong page here. I do respect all kind of beliefs. Like I believe in StarTrek, other people believe in God and both concepts share a certain transcendence. I think of a religion as a guidance to your personal development and I myself have even read some passages of the bible, even learnt some by rote for my confirmation. Even if someone would give me the power to ban all religion from the World, I would not use it cause I understand the necessity for it and the impact it has on peoples life. And I understand that a lot of people just feel better in their lifes believing in religion.

The only thing I am afraid of is that the belief in religion could blind people. In my opinion religious people should be something like the Jedi in StarWars. they should have the strength to carry on their word against all odds but they shouldnt turn aggressive if someone is not of their opinion. of course sometimes you have to defend your ideals, even with force; I just come from a nation who has made very very bad experiences with following people who have ideals and that has made me grumpy and critical of ideals.

So what I am asking for is mutual respect. I respect religion and religion should respect my iconoclastic agnosticism.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I never do that, but I know that in America religion has a strong grasp on politics and society, while in my country for example it has virtually no influence. Due to that being so I have to weave the blanket over everything to encounter for the dynamic of the situation.

I personally and that I have stated often, am a big fan of the morale and ethics religion shows and wish for more people in society to share that wisdom. I just dont believe in a God or an afterlife. And I think and I am not alone with that that the american church has become as fundamental as its enemies its opposing and I am just having a careful eye on that and hope it wont play out bad for you. Cause I like you and am not your enemy.

i wish it was not the case, but there it is. a place where there is supposed to be a separation of church in state is fraught with an intermingled weaving of crap between them both.

i don't subscribe to any church or religion that tells me how to vote, and i don't follow any politician because of their faith. the church i attend lost about half of its congregation (about 1500-2000 people) back in 2004 because the (ENTP ) pastor refused to endorse the GOP candidate publicly. that's the kind of church I can follow.

having said that, i think it is a big mistake to lump large groups of people together. it's just so easy to do that and then to draw conclusions based off of that. i don't see a productive resolution to conflicts based off "well, this group of people do X", etc.

no hard feelings from me on this topic by the way. i like hearing your perspective.

 

[Nicodemus]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJEpXxXnfXw"]Arguing through flowers[/YOUTUBE]

 

[entropie]

i wish it was not the case, but there it is. a place where there is supposed to be a separation of church in state is fraught with an intermingled weaving of crap between them both.

i don't subscribe to any church or religion that tells me how to vote, and i don't follow any politician because of their faith. the church i attend lost about half of its congregation (about 1500-2000 people) back in 2004 because the (ENTP ) pastor refused to endorse the GOP candidate publicly. that's the kind of church I can follow.

having said that, i think it is a big mistake to lump large groups of people together. it's just so easy to do that and then to draw conclusions based off of that. i don't see a productive resolution to conflicts based off "well, this group of people do X", etc.

no hard feelings from me on this topic by the way. i like hearing your perspective.

thats good that you choosed that unpolitically and not motivated by a politician. my fear tho isnt changed by that and I only hope your faith is never been tested to an extreme.

I think there is a lot of cultural difference here and I just hope for the best. and that the scenarios I make up in my mind wont come true.

 

[Lark]

The same you most prolly will hear from a heroine abuser.

I doubt it since its a different story altogether.

You're trying to employ the quote from Marx about religion being an opiate, the rest of that quote goes "the heart of a heartless world", although you'll sedom hear that.

 

[Lark]

This is actually why I find evangelizing atheists more annoying than evangelizing religious people... because the evangelizing religious people I've met don't try to argue with you as relentlessly. They don't cite Richard Dawkins at you nonstop.

?????

I'll second that, I'm first among those who despise nuisance preachers and religious evangelism, although I think most of the worst variety of whatever underlying psychological character profile is at work there has migrated to atheism.

 

[Lark]

A drug users first arguement is that he does drugs because he cant stand reality. Dont understand why you put question marks on that

I didnt see that stated in any of the numerous threads about drugs launched by all the drug using atheists on the forum. Religion isnt escapism.

 

[Lark]

I have a different opinion on this. As long as people wage wars because they have different "personal choices" in religion, I feel its my democratic right to tell them that they are stupid.

You have that right wholly or in part because of those same wars which people choose to fight because they have different personal choices in religion.

 

[EJCC]

A drug users first arguement is that he does drugs because he cant stand reality. Dont understand why you put question marks on that

It was just because I was confused by your statement, is all. But now I understand what you were trying to say.

 

[Coriolis]

having said that, i think it is a big mistake to lump large groups of people together. it's just so easy to do that and then to draw conclusions based off of that. i don't see a productive resolution to conflicts based off "well, this group of people do X", etc.

Regarding religion, there are only two groups of people I will lump together for criticism. The first is those who use their beliefs to justify or even motivate their own inhumanity. The second is those who accept their beliefs blindly, without any critical analysis, study, or thought. To me, this is putting away childish things: developing an adult system of beliefs, values, spirituality, and whatever pertains thereto, rather than simply plodding along in whatever one has been brought up with. I don't respect all beliefs, though I respect everyone's right to believe as they wish.

 

[Beargryllz]

Jesus Christ is in my 5 favorite people list

 

[gmanyo]

Thanks, but why do you disagree with the point I made? Believing in benevolent "super natural" beings is something we can forgive in children, but not so much in adults. That millions of people are walking around in my country truly believing in, for example, "angels" worries me.

Because I happen to believe in these things. I do question my beliefs, and I'm still not completely decided on them, but there is more reason to believe in existence outside of the "natural" world than most atheists realize (though I really don't want to get into a debate about it right now). I don't understand why this would worry you. If anything, belief in a higher power generally has a positive effect on people's lives, whether it's true or not. If there really is no spiritual side of life, then there is nothing objectively wrong with believing false things.

Also, I see the argument in many places that religion is bad because of all the atrocities done in the name of God. I'd like to point out that almost all charities I've seen are either explicitly religious or were started/are run by religious people. I know several, possibly as many as 20 or 30, Christians who have given up the comfort of their middle class American lives to help impoverished people in third world countries, and believe me when I say it isn't easy. It means saying goodbye to your friends and family for the greater good of the world. Some people might get mad because these Christians try to convert those people to Christianity, but honestly I don't care if it's all lies; I've never seen something as life changing as Christianity for impoverished people. It gives them hope for something greater in life, even though they have almost no material wealth. So who cares if it's not true? I guess the biggest worry is that some other religion is true that punishes Christians, but from an atheist perspective this is rather unlikely.

 

[entropie]

Because I happen to believe in these things. I do question my beliefs, and I'm still not completely decided on them, but there is more reason to believe in existence outside of the "natural" world than most atheists realize (though I really don't want to get into a debate about it right now). I don't understand why this would worry you. If anything, belief in a higher power generally has a positive effect on people's lives, whether it's true or not. If there really is no spiritual side of life, then there is nothing objectively wrong with believing false things.

Here is a difficulty I gave some thought as well, especially with regards to the upbringing of my own childs. I was raised to have questions. My Mum and Dad always tried to answer my questions and I had a high demand for knowing everything in detail. So if there was a thunderstorm approaching I really tried to analyze the system and to understand why those things happen.

This attitude of course went on all my early and late life. I honed that skill and delved deeper and deeper into understanding, fueled by a huge amount of curiosity.

The problem now is that my understanding of the World is shaped in such a way that I am not receptive to religion at all. This upbringing majorly was shared by 90% of the people I grew up with therefore my generation is totally sceptic of religion and rather sees it as a manipulative force that isnt based on reason.

So if I want to raise my kids now and give them the chance to decide about religion for themselves, I basically wont be able to do that because my nature will already influence them from the start.

I am intrested to see how things develop in my country. Imo people come to religion thru upbringing, economic and social disasters, wars, poverty... but its intresting to see what will happen in development if all these factors are missing. And if society will still need something like religion at all. or if its like in the game age of empires another evolutunary step for a civilisation to transform their religion into a morale and ethic guide book for personal growth but without its superstition ?!

 

[Helios]

Because I happen to believe in these things. I do question my beliefs, and I'm still not completely decided on them, but there is more reason to believe in existence outside of the "natural" world than most atheists realize (though I really don't want to get into a debate about it right now). I don't understand why this would worry you. If anything, belief in a higher power generally has a positive effect on people's lives, whether it's true or not. If there really is no spiritual side of life, then there is nothing objectively wrong with believing false things.

It concerns me because believing in angels and the like is so manifestly ridiculous. If people can believe that, and act on that belief, of what else are they capable? I think the claim that "belief in a higher power generally has a positive effect on people's lives" is dubious at very best. Given the atrocities, intellectual and moral, that have been committed in the name of religion-and continue to be so-how on earth could you say such a thing with a straight face?

Also, I see the argument in many places that religion is bad because of all the atrocities done in the name of God. I'd like to point out that almost all charities I've seen are either explicitly religious or were started/are run by religious people. I know several, possibly as many as 20 or 30, Christians who have given up the comfort of their middle class American lives to help impoverished people in third world countries, and believe me when I say it isn't easy. It means saying goodbye to your friends and family for the greater good of the world. Some people might get mad because these Christians try to convert those people to Christianity, but honestly I don't care if it's all lies; I've never seen something as life changing as Christianity for impoverished people. It gives them hope for something greater in life, even though they have almost no material wealth. So who cares if it's not true? I guess the biggest worry is that some other religion is true that punishes Christians, but from an atheist perspective this is rather unlikely.

Most of the charities I know of have probably been founded by white men. Are white men by nature more charitable than other people? Probably not. Even if the charity of many Christians is rooted in their Christianity, this hardly outweighs the evil done by religion as a whole. The Christian missionaries may be willing to go abroad and feed the hungry, but they would probably be quite happy, for example, for women of their own country to be compelled to give birth against their will, to medicalise homosexuality and to have erected a state better resembling a theocracy than secular government.

In addition, I find your indifference towards the truth of what people believe odd. Isn't it better to believe things that are true rather than false?

 

[Coriolis]

Blind belief in a higher power is dangerous, since it turns people into sheep who are easily manipulated by leaders with destructive intentions. The leaders need not actually believe in anything themselves except greed, power, and their own personal agenda. Thoughtful, critical belief in a higher power is much harder to use in this fashion, and often forms a key motivation of "the resistance" to destructive regimes. Witness Muslims who join terrorist organizations and commit suicide bombings vs. Muslims who speak out against violence and oppression, and are themselves threatened with death.

 

[Lark]

I am intrested to see how things develop in my country. Imo people come to religion thru upbringing, economic and social disasters, wars, poverty... but its intresting to see what will happen in development if all these factors are missing. And if society will still need something like religion at all. or if its like in the game age of empires another evolutunary step for a civilisation to transform their religion into a morale and ethic guide book for personal growth but without its superstition ?!

Religion doesnt exist simply because its socially useful or utilitarian and its not simply a form of relief, a lot of the worlds religions were pioneered by hermits and wandering sages who did not preach to others or seek to spread their teachings at all, still others were inspired by messages from teachers to withdraw from social intercourse and live solitary existences.

There is also much more to religion than ethics and I would suggest that it is total and utter confusion to associate superstition with religion properly understood. What I think you mean is that you believe it would be civilising if religion transformed into humanism, that is incredibly reductive of what religion is and the role it plays for individuals.

Like I said before it is not merely utilitarian or socially useful, I would be inclined to agree with Jung in Modern Man In Search of His Soul, that religion corresponds to deep seated psychological needs, which are often not active in the first phase of life at all, hence all the young atheists who have arisen in this generation I would suspect, and this is not a consequence of impending or approaching mortality, its about accomplishment, achievement or transcendence of other life goals and challenges.

Jung considered the whole process to correspond to the activation of archetypes, I'm not sure that's the whole story, cultural pressures and popular thinking can have a bigger impact than even the most self-proclaimed non-conformist would acknowledge or believe and I think it takes time before people are able to think about these things without prejudice.

 

[CzeCze]

I think a more interesting question would be how many NTs converted to Christianity or became 'born again' in adulthood as opposed to how many NTs left the church or otherwise greatly lessened their involvement as adults. And compare that to the NTs who joined/left other religions in adulthood and compare all of that <-- to the rest of the population.

I think there's a stereotype that NTs are super rational and therefore would be atheists and NFs are 'compassionate hippies' and therefore would be attracted to cults. Most of a person's religious beliefs in adult life are almost a direct result of whatever they were raised in and exposed to. You have very little to no control over this as a child. The presence of a belief in god or religion has almost nothing to do with personality type when its something you are groomed for since birth.

Now how that religious upbringing is interpreted, incorporated, and rejected in life as an adult, maybe.

Also, I think most of the people posting in the thread will be from the US, which is a secular Christian society and has a much more religious mainstream population than Europe (asterisk for later debate). You're born here and defacto have a high chance of being raised at least as a casual Christian. If there are links between type and religion, it would be more telling to see statistics in a society where atheism is the norm or even government enforced to see who takes the risk to explore and practice religion.

 

[gmanyo]

It concerns me because believing in angels and the like is so manifestly ridiculous. If people can believe that, and act on that belief, of what else are they capable? I think the claim that "belief in a higher power generally has a positive effect on people's lives" is dubious at very best. Given the atrocities, intellectual and moral, that have been committed in the name of religion-and continue to be so-how on earth could you say such a thing with a straight face?

I'd like to point out that many of the most well-known "atrocious killers" - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - were not particularly religious, and were all open promoters of atheism. Although there is evidence to say that Hitler was a Christian, there is also evidence otherwise, and Stalin is "worse" in terms of kill count. In fact, Stalin literally has the highest kill count of any leader ever. Mao might actually be worse if you look at how many people died as the result of his policies.

And don't tell me that "they aren't real atheists", because I guarantee you that the Christians that committed the crusades and other acts of violence were not real Christians. I don't discount atheism because of the atrocities done by atheist leaders, neither should atheists discount religion for the atrocities done in its name. I think the claim that religion is bad due to all the atrocities done in its name is "dubious at best". In fact, I think it's complete bullshit.

And you say my claim about happiness is unfounded, but it's actually well founded in research, and more than just one overblown study. This does nothing to prove or disprove religion of course.

Most of the charities I know of have probably been founded by white men. Are white men by nature more charitable than other people? Probably not. Even if the charity of many Christians is rooted in their Christianity, this hardly outweighs the evil done by religion as a whole. The Christian missionaries may be willing to go abroad and feed the hungry, but they would probably be quite happy, for example, for women of their own country to be compelled to give birth against their will, to medicalise homosexuality and to have erected a state better resembling a theocracy than secular government.

While I will admit that many Christians have some dumb political views, not all of them do. To be quite honest, many of the Christians that I know are liberals and couldn't give two shits as to whether or not gay marriage was legalized, and would actually fight against the mistreatment of homosexuals. I'm practically a socialist myself. Go look at this topic that I started.

The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong, but most Christians I know don't judge homosexuals at all. The kindest people that I've met are religious, usually Christians. I once had a gay guy like me (romantically, I mean). I didn't care, and I'm still his friend, because I think he's an awesome dude. Truth be told, it probably would have been more awkward if a girl liked me who I didn't like. Most homosexual men I've met seem nicer than the straight ones anyway.

Going along with your "white men" point, I don't think that white men are more charitable than other races. But religious people honestly do seem more charitable than non-religious people. And I'm not just guessing here; studies show that religious people are significantly more charitable than non-religious ones. Although upon further research, some of my claims about religious charities were wrong. At the same time, though, even in that article, the writer has very few statistics, and I do think that Christians' donations are inspired by their beliefs.

Also note that there are many Muslim charities, and I know Christian missionaries of many creeds and colors; Filipino, British, Chinese, Korean, American, German, South African, and more.

inb4 an interesting charity article somewhat supportive of atheists. Kind of:
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-do-religious-people-give-more-to.html

In addition, I find your indifference towards the truth of what people believe odd. Isn't it better to believe things that are true rather than false?

Not according to your worldview. Hell, I don't think that anything should be considered objectively "better" or "worse" according to your worldview. I'm not saying that this makes your beliefs untrue, but if you want to be consistent with the logical progression of your worldview, than Mao and Stalin (and Hitler and Ghengis Kahn and the crusade leaders) did nothing wrong, objectively speaking.

On top of this, if you have decided for yourself, subjectively, that it is "better" to try and help people and improve others' lives as well as your own, false beliefs might actually be better.

I'm not indifferent towards truth; I think that truth is very important. I'm just saying that according to your beliefs it really shouldn't mean anything.


As a final point, none of the thing I'm saying here are trying to prove or disprove any worldview. I'm just saying that none of your claims refute religion, and many are inconsistent with your beliefs or are outright false.