MBTI type and belief in god

[greenfairy]

I believe God is an evil mastermind beyond imagination. Just look at all the suffering in the Universe! What kind of insane fiend would you have to be to create this maniacal madhouse that we are cursed to dwindle within?

You should read Descartes' Evil Genius skepticism.

 

[greenfairy]

I'm a pantheist/polytheist/atheist, and I try to prove that "God" doesn't exist. However God, god, gods, and other such words can have multiple definitions, and some of them can have explanations for existence. That's how theists try to get around it- they redefine "God" to mean something much more general (like Descartes and Berkeley) like Collective Consciousness; but then they wouldn't use that word in everyday speech, because they would really mean something more.

 

[sprinkles]

Then why even believe in a creator-god?

Why not?

I mean, a thing being unpleasant is not a reason to disbelieve it.

I don't believe in the capital G God, and that isn't because I don't like him. Believing that God is the creator and believing that God is a cosmic butthole are two entirely different things.

 

[/DG/]

I'm a pantheist/polytheist/atheist, and I try to prove that "God" doesn't exist. However God, god, gods, and other such words can have multiple definitions, and some of them can have explanations for existence. That's how theists try to get around it- they redefine "God" to mean something much more general (like Descartes and Berkeley) like Collective Consciousness; but then they wouldn't use that word in everyday speech, because they would really mean something more.

How can you be both a polytheist and an atheist? The pantheism part I understand--it all depends on how you define God. However, polytheism and atheism are mutually exclusive. They contradict each other.

 

[/DG/]

Why not?

I mean, a thing being unpleasant is not a reason to disbelieve it.

I don't believe in the capital G God, and that isn't because I don't like him. Believing that God is the creator and believing that God is a cosmic butthole are two entirely different things.

Exactly. It's perfectly fine to be an atheist, but if you are one simply because you don't think a god would do horrible things, you're being irrational. I've never understood this line of reasoning, but it is a very common one.

 

[Isis]

ENFP and very much believe in God. I have had many surreal, supernatural experiences. Prayers answered. I have my proof.

 

[greenfairy]

How can you be both a polytheist and an atheist? The pantheism part I understand--it all depends on how you define God. However, polytheism and atheism are mutually exclusive. They contradict each other.

So it would seem. But it also relies on definition of god/s. I don't believe in god with a capital G; that is, I don't believe that there is one powerful being who controls things, but I do believe that gods "exist" in a manner of speaking. The reasoning is as follows. I believe that matter and energy exist, and that matter is just a dense form of energy. So the physical plane is just dense energy. Thought and emotion are less dense and collect into patterns and forms; these transcend the physical body. Collections of energy can result from human attention, and that's how humans create "gods." So gods exist as collections of energy from human thought activity, and can dissipate and dissolve with lack of attention- but they don't exist independently from us. This is pretty much the Hindu belief; that's why Hinduism is at its core atheistic (as well as polytheistic), and more of a spiritual philosophy.

*So to clarify, gods don't exist as independent, omnipotent, anthropomorphic beings- but they exist as lifelike concepts with which we can interact because we are made of the same material.

Sound plausible? I don't think it's any less reasonable than monotheism.

 

[greenfairy]

And just for the record, why can't God be a She? I invite everyone to try replacing "He" with "She" when you talk about God, and see where things go. It's an interesting experiment. People say there's no reason it's a male gendered being and not a female gendered being, and they say the Ultimate It doesn't have a gender- but those same people refer to It as a He all the time, and saying She might expose some hidden assumptions. Like say She created the earth, She created us, She is all powerful and benevolent, etc. The obvious implication which comes up is that if Goddess is the Creator, She is our mother, and gave birth to us- rather than some impersonal Father creating us like a clay pot. Which makes vaginas holy.

Just try it and see what happens.

 

[/DG/]

So it would seem. But it also relies on definition of god/s. I don't believe in god with a capital G; that is, I don't believe that there is one powerful being who controls things, but I do believe that gods "exist" in a manner of speaking. The reasoning is as follows. I believe that matter and energy exist, and that matter is just a dense form of energy. So the physical plane is just dense energy. Thought and emotion are less dense and collect into patterns and forms; these transcend the physical body. Collections of energy can result from human attention, and that's how humans create "gods." So gods exist as collections of energy from human thought activity, and can dissipate and dissolve with lack of attention- but they don't exist independently from us. This is pretty much the Hindu belief; that's why Hinduism is at its core atheistic (as well as polytheistic), and more of a spiritual philosophy.

*So to clarify, gods don't exist as independent, omnipotent, anthropomorphic beings- but they exist as lifelike concepts with which we can interact because we are made of the same material.

Sound plausible? I don't think it's any less reasonable than monotheism.

Interesting perspective. I've never heard this before and I didn't know that this was a Hindu belief. A quick Google search reveals that there is a such think as the coexistance of atheism and Hinduism. I was not aware of anything like this before.

As I don't know much about Hinduism, I can't say I can say much in response to your statement. I will say that semantics are getting in the way a bit, as the definitions of polytheism and atheism themselves are contradictory in nature.

Anyway, thanks for sharing a little bit of your unique and interesting beliefs!

 

[Mole]

Art and Religion

When we see a movie, we suspend our disbelief as long as the movie lasts. And when the movie is over, we return to our disbelief.

And so when we go to Mass, we suspend our disbelief as long as the Mass lasts. And when the Mass is over, we return to our disbelief.

And we can suspend our disbelief in Allah, or Krishna, or Confucius, or any other deity or guru.

Of course, as we learn in the Bible, "My God is a jealous God", so we find the suspension of disbelief is resisted in almost all religions or beliefs. Although we notice it is not resisted in the movies. And the suspension of disbelief is not resisted in literature and poetry, in art, in ballet, in opera, in music and song. And so we conclude that Art is superior to religion.

 

[/DG/]

And just for the record, why can't God be a She? I invite everyone to try replacing "He" with "She" when you talk about God, and see where things go. It's an interesting experiment. People say there's no reason it's a male gendered being and not a female gendered being, and they say the Ultimate It doesn't have a gender- but those same people refer to It as a He all the time, and saying She might expose some hidden assumptions. Like say She created the earth, She created us, She is all powerful and benevolent, etc. The obvious implication which comes up is that if Goddess is the Creator, She is our mother, and gave birth to us- rather than some impersonal Father creating us like a clay pot. Which makes vaginas holy.

Just try it and see what happens.

I get what you're saying, but the Abrahamic god that most people speak of is generally thought of as a male figure. It's not something that the people of these Abrahamic religions can simply change. Look at the male pronouns used to describe this god. No one is going to randomly change the Bible today to have gender-neutral pronouns or anything. It just can't happen.

Another popular belief is that the Abrahamic god simply transcends gender, and male pronouns were only used because males were the "superior" gender when it was written.

Of course other religions have female goddesses.

 

[greenfairy]

I get what you're saying, but the Abrahamic god that most people speak of is generally thought of as a male figure. It's not something that the people of these Abrahamic religions can simply change. Look at the male pronouns used to describe this god. No one is going to randomly change the Bible today to have gender-neutral pronouns or anything. It just can't happen.

Another popular belief is that the Abrahamic god simply transcends gender, and male pronouns were only used because males were the "superior" gender when it was written.

Of course other religions have female goddesses.

Yes, and my argument is that these same people usually won't acknowledge that their deity is thought of as a male figure. Furthermore, agnostics and atheists alike still use this terminology. So people of the Abrahamic tradition should say what they mean, and everyone else should free themselves from Abrahamic religious influence and consider deities in a broader perspective when they refer to them. Christianity and Islam aren't the only theistic religions, and Abrahamic monotheism isn't the only alternative to atheism.

 

[/DG/]

Yes, and my argument is that these same people usually won't acknowledge that their deity is thought of as a male figure.

??

Are you saying that people are in denial that the Abrahamic god is generally thought of as male? I can't say that I know any of these people.

Furthermore, agnostics and atheists alike still use this terminology.

I would guess that this is simply due to the dominance and influence of Abrahamic religions. The majority of religious people belong to Abrahamic religions. When talking most theists theists, it I find that would be more relevant for me to refer to their god as a "he" rather than a "she" or an "it."

So people of the Abrahamic tradition should say what they mean, and everyone else should free themselves from Abrahamic religious influence and consider deities in a broader perspective when they refer to them. Christianity and Islam aren't the only theistic religions, and Abrahamic monotheism isn't the only alternative to atheism.

I think you're being a bit too touchy about this.

 

[greenfairy]

??
I think you're being a bit too touchy about this.

I have a personal involvement in it, it's true. But really, it's just not getting the big picture of what's true. No one has any objective reason to define a deity as one gender or the other, as deity is a neutral term. It's also kind of sexist in my opinion to automatically think of the most perfect being as male gendered. My personal involvement with the issue is partly there, partly because of my personal beliefs, and partly because my beliefs are largely not represented in mainstream culture and philosophy. And it's not because they're less rational than the dominant ones- it's because one is dominant and has historically tried to suppress the other. And I think every viewpoint deserves equal examination for philosophical validity, on the same criteria (from the Thinking perspective), and every personal experience and cultural way of life deserves equal acceptance of value (from a Feeling perspective).

I get what you're saying, but the Abrahamic god that most people speak of is generally thought of as a male figure. It's not something that the people of these Abrahamic religions can simply change. Look at the male pronouns used to describe this god. No one is going to randomly change the Bible today to have gender-neutral pronouns or anything. It just can't happen.

It can; the Bible has been revised and re-translated many many times.

Another popular belief is that the Abrahamic god simply transcends gender, and male pronouns were only used because males were the "superior" gender when it was written.

The fact that male pronouns were used because the male gender was superior at the time suggests that when the male gender no longer is thought of as superior, it's time to change the pronouns.

??I would guess that this is simply due to the dominance and influence of Abrahamic religions. The majority of religious people belong to Abrahamic religions. When talking most theists theists, it I find that would be more relevant for me to refer to their god as a "he" rather than a "she" or an "it."

That's true, but there are still places where it doesn't apply- if you go to India, or a Native American reservation, that probably won't be the case. And if you are talking to Wiccans it definitely won't be the case. But you're right that when talking with Abrahamic monotheists it is more diplomatic. (And I'm more opinionated than diplomatic, I guess.)

Interesting perspective. I've never heard this before and I didn't know that this was a Hindu belief. A quick Google search reveals that there is a such think as the coexistance of atheism and Hinduism. I was not aware of anything like this before.

As I don't know much about Hinduism, I can't say I can say much in response to your statement. I will say that semantics are getting in the way a bit, as the definitions of polytheism and atheism themselves are contradictory in nature.

Anyway, thanks for sharing a little bit of your unique and interesting beliefs!

I'm glad you find it interesting and enjoy learning about different perspectives.

 

[/DG/]

I have a personal involvement in it, it's true. But really, it's just not getting the big picture of what's true. No one has any objective reason to define a deity as one gender or the other, as deity is a neutral term. It's also kind of sexist in my opinion to automatically think of the most perfect being as male gendered. My personal involvement with the issue is partly there, partly because of my personal beliefs, and partly because my beliefs are largely not represented in mainstream culture and philosophy. And it's not because they're less rational than the dominant ones- it's because one is dominant and has historically tried to suppress the other. And I think every viewpoint deserves equal examination for philosophical validity, on the same criteria (from the Thinking perspective), and every personal experience and cultural way of life deserves equal acceptance of value (from a Feeling perspective).

I understand why you're frustrated, but no single person can change this cultural view that the overwhelming majority of people have. There isn't anything I or any single person can do about this.

It can; the Bible has been revised and re-translated many many times.

True. I don't exactly know how to phrase what I'm trying to say here. There isn't really a reason for them to change it. Plus, I know that the Bible has been changed many times in the past. Often it seems as if this was done for certain people to gain power. Yet, I don't think people would be happy with the Bible being changed today, especially if they do not necessarily agree with the changes.

Also, my response to the below quote is another reason for them not to change this.

Gah, my words aren't coming out right.

The fact that male pronouns were used because the male gender was superior at the time suggests that when the male gender no longer is thought of as superior, it's time to change the pronouns.

I think there is disagreement in the community on whether or not the Abrahamic god is actually male. The literalists believe he is, but others believe he is beyond gender. My reason for why the Abrahamic god is male is likely not accepted by the literalists.

That's true, but there are still places where it doesn't apply- if you go to India, or a Native American reservation, that probably won't be the case. And if you are talking to Wiccans it definitely won't be the case. But you're right that when talking with Abrahamic monotheists it is more diplomatic. (And I'm more opinionated than diplomatic, I guess.)

Glad to see we agree on this.

I'm glad you find it interesting and enjoy learning about different perspectives.

Hey, I'm always interested in something I've never heard before.

 

[Sniffles]

As I don't know much about Hinduism....

Don't worry, many people don't, and this is unfortunately further exasperated by the water-down versions of Hinduism and other Eastern religions that are presented and misinterpreted to flatter Western sensibilities.

 

[/DG/]

Don't worry, many people don't, and this is unfortunately further exasperated by the water-down versions of Hinduism and other Eastern religions that are presented and misinterpreted to flatter Western sensibilities.

I was thinking about taking a class on Eastern religions sometime later at my university. Do you think this would help me further my knowledge or should I not bother?

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

And just for the record, why can't God be a She? I invite everyone to try replacing "He" with "She" when you talk about God, and see where things go. It's an interesting experiment. People say there's no reason it's a male gendered being and not a female gendered being, and they say the Ultimate It doesn't have a gender- but those same people refer to It as a He all the time, and saying She might expose some hidden assumptions. Like say She created the earth, She created us, She is all powerful and benevolent, etc. The obvious implication which comes up is that if Goddess is the Creator, She is our mother, and gave birth to us- rather than some impersonal Father creating us like a clay pot. Which makes vaginas holy.

Just try it and see what happens.

No need for implications of mother/father with an it....

Atheist SP btw.

 

[Sniffles]

I was thinking about taking a class on Eastern religions sometime later at my university. Do you think this would help me further my knowledge or should I not bother?

It may help, but I can't guarantee it. Some scholars are rather competent in the field, other not so much. One Hindu scholar I'd personally recommend is Ananda K Coomaraswamy, who helped first bring much of the Hindu tradition to Western attention. Furthermore, he pioneered comparative studies of Hindu and Western schools of philosophy such as Neo-Platonism and Scholasticism.

Here's his son Rama talking about the issue of the mistaken approaches to both comparative religious studies and spiritual seeking:

 

[/DG/]

It may help, but I can't guarantee it. Some scholars are rather competent in the field, other not so much. One Hindu scholar I'd personally recommend is Ananda K Coomaraswamy, who helped first bring much of the Hindu tradition to Western attention. Furthermore, he pioneered comparative studies of Hindu and Western schools of philosophy such as Neo-Platonism and Scholasticism.

Here's his son Rama talking about the issue of the mistaken approaches to both comparative religious studies and spiritual seeking:
[video]

Hmm...well thanks for this.

I'd like to say that I'll read up more on Coomaraswamy, but I'm notoriously lazy. I find that I don't tend to learn much if the content is too thick unless I am in a structured environment that forces me to do so.