[NT] NTs why did you embrace religion?

[Kristiana]

Why we are here I see more as a purpose thing that people can create for themselves. I also don't think we need a reason to exist.

And have fun here, Kristiana. =)

Thanks!

That's your interpretation, and maybe says more about you than me, although I would not necessarily disagree with the statement. Who are these people who interpreted "weak" in this way?

I think one of the interesting aspects of a forum like this is the different attitude to religion in the US and the UK. The majority of people in the UK like religion to have a very low profile and plays little part in daily life. From my experience in the US religion is much more mainstream.

Welcome to MBTICentral Kristiana, I notice that your profile doesn’t state where you’re from.

p.s. Did C.S. Lewis actually take the test?

Hi!

I don't believe Lewis took the test, but it's plainly obvious from his writings that he was one of us He has also indicated in his autobiography about having a lot of INTJ traits, including disinterest in small talk and preferring to be by himself.

I guess I don't understand how the words weak or succumb could have a positive connotation. If my interpretation is wrong, would you mind telling me what you did mean to imply by your statement, "I can understand why some "weak" types succumb but NT's especially INTJ's/INTP, surely not?"

Thanks And, I am from the USA, although I can tell you that the role of religion in US culture greatly depends on what type of community you live in and choose to associate yourself with. Serious Christians et al are in the minority here too, although you can find them if you look.

I'd love to visit the UK sometime. Have you always lived there?

 

[red13]

Thanks!

I guess I don't understand how the words weak or succumb could have a positive connotation. If my interpretation is wrong, would you mind telling me what you did mean to imply by your statement, "I can understand why some "weak" types succumb but NT's especially INTJ's/INTP, surely not?"

Thanks And, I am from the USA, although I can tell you that the role of religion in US culture greatly depends on what type of community you live in and choose to associate yourself with. Serious Christians et al are in the minority here too, although you can find them if you look.

I'd love to visit the UK sometime. Have you always lived there?

Hi Kristiana,

I didn't mean weak literally that's why I put it in quotes, I guess it was too subtle a joke for anyone outside of my own head.

All my business contacts are in the US, most being Christian(the majority Morman LDS). I'm sure it wouldn't be good for my business to tell them that I was atheist.

Yes I've always live in England, Born in London and slowly moved south, ancestors from Kent, Norfolk and Dublin.

Sadly I'm going to make this my last post on MBTICentral as I've fallen out with the moderators( Cafe & Jennifer) who feel that my, apparent, contemp and dislike for religion may upset some of the forum members. Maybe they should read their own FAQ on forum rules.

 

[Totenkindly]

Sadly I'm going to make this my last post on MBTICentral as I've fallen out with the moderators( Cafe & Jennifer) who feel that my, apparent, contempt and dislike for religion may upset some of the forum members. Maybe they should read their own FAQ on forum rules.

Yes, I'm evil. Everyone knows it. (And always utterly unfair and unkind.)

To clarify, since you've now brought it up in a public forum, it's clearly the reverse from what you've stated: Cafe and I have fallen out of favor with you, and you've decided that you don't like it here because it's not run the way you'd like, and so you've decided to leave as a protest.

If you'd like to continue this discussion in full view of the forum, please confine it to the Feedback subforum. Since you've read the FAQ, you should recall a subpoint of #3 that states:

A post made to a thread of another topic about forum politics meant to cause digression into forum politics is also classified as trolling. If the post contains personal attacks on forum administrators and/or users, it is a flame.

 

[Tigerlily]

Hi Kristiana,

I didn't mean weak literally that's why I put it in quotes, I guess it was too subtle a joke for anyone outside of my own head.

All my business contacts are in the US, most being Christian(the majority Morman LDS). I'm sure it wouldn't be good for my business to tell them that I was atheist.

Yes I've always live in England, Born in London and slowly moved south, ancestors from Kent, Norfolk and Dublin.

Sadly I'm going to make this my last post on MBTICentral as I've fallen out with the moderators( Cafe & Jennifer) who feel that my, apparent, contemp and dislike for religion may upset some of the forum members. Maybe they should read their own FAQ on forum rules.

So I won't be receiving the data then? Shame.

 

[htb]

my apparent contempt and dislike for religion may upset some of the forum members

Not all. Jesus loves you too, you benighted SOB!

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I was forced to go to orthodox Jewish day school. I was also somewhat skeptical and blah blah. I'm sick of hearing myself talk.

I hated Judaism because god didn't make sense.

I was anti-religion and anti-god for about 4 years.

At the end of college I tried mushrooms and was turned onto Buddhism after trying to make sense of my experience. I read D.T. Suzuki's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind and something clicked. Then I read Alan Watts who explains Zen very eloquently.

I now use my own experiences as a spiritual compass. I analyze experiences where I feel at peace and look to why that happened. More and more I find that I identify with Buddhist doctrine. Most of my spirituality now derives from slowing down, helping others, watching people, realizing I exist, contemplating physics and trying to fathom the universe, unsuccessfully.

 

[INTJMom]

...
I've fallen out with the moderators( Cafe & Jennifer) who feel that my, apparent, contempt and dislike for religion may upset some of the forum members. Maybe they should read their own FAQ on forum rules.

I doubt that's true.
There's a real strong tolerance contingency here.
I'm sure you fit in just fine.
In my experience, the members are more likely to shush the religious than the non-religious.

 

[JonJT]

Just my 2 cents:

If you can look death in the eye and face it alone, I am of the opinion you are that you are very brave yet foolish. It takes quite a person to believe that we all cease to exist after the physical death.

 

[Totenkindly]

If you can look death in the eye and face it alone, I am of the opinion you are that you are very brave yet foolish. It takes quite a person to believe that we all cease to exist after the physical death.

Why?

Any tangible evidence points to death being death. All other arguments to the contrary are philosophical in nature. The empirical evidence (the only evidence that everyone can 100% agree on, because it is observable by everyone and replicable) is that death is, well, death.

Everything else is based on the faith/hope that the evidence is lying... or not the full truth.

 

[antireconciler]

Why?

Any tangible evidence points to death being death. All other arguments to the contrary are philosophical in nature. The empirical evidence (the only evidence that everyone can 100% agree on, because it is observable by everyone and replicable) is that death is, well, death.

Everything else is based on the faith/hope that the evidence is lying... or not the full truth.

No one would argue unless they didn't have intuitions that appear to them to be to the contrary ... which is its own kind of evidence. So what exactly does "evidence" point to? It's no use to rely on a distinction between what is tangible and what is not, for they all have their tangibility insofar as they affect us, and their intangibility insofar as we interpret them. Be careful, therefore, not to rely too heavily on tautologies such as "things are what they are", which you hear people say sometimes. Knives all too often cut their wielders.

Death is surely death ... but what now is death? I ask, because it isn't clear what it is. To look at death and return with an idea of it is to have not died, and thus to have returned unaffected by death qua death ... how then could it ever be possible for you do have returned with any idea of it? It could not have affected you. Therefore, only you could have. But you are inherently alive, and one thing cannot arise out of what it is not.

 

[JonJT]

Why?

Any tangible evidence points to death being death. All other arguments to the contrary are philosophical in nature. The empirical evidence (the only evidence that everyone can 100% agree on, because it is observable by everyone and replicable) is that death is, well, death.

Everything else is based on the faith/hope that the evidence is lying... or not the full truth.

Two key aspects here. Tangible evidence and physical death. To exist doesn't mean it must be in the physical form. Scientific evidence as you suggested, of such an existence is not tangible.

Also, realize that I have no problem with, but actual welcome faith in God. I'll put it to you this way. I hold a belief based on a deep feeling, or knowledge that I just cannot scientifically explain. You call it philosophical, I call it faith. It transcends all that is human and that is the point. God is supposed to be omnipotent and is supposed to be beyond our comprehension through tangible and scientific means. I just happen to believe. I find comfort and solace in it.

 

[JonJT]

No one would argue unless they didn't have intuitions that appear to them to be to the contrary ... which is its own kind of evidence. So what exactly does "evidence" point to? It's no use to rely on a distinction between what is tangible and what is not, for they all have their tangibility insofar as they affect us, and their intangibility insofar as we interpret them. Be careful, therefore, not to rely too heavily on tautologies such as "things are what they are", which you hear people say sometimes. Knives all too often cut their wielders.

Death is surely death ... but what now is death? I ask, because it isn't clear what it is. To look at death and return with an idea of it is to have not died, and thus to have returned unaffected by death qua death ... how then could it ever be possible for you do have returned with any idea of it? It could not have affected you. Therefore, only you could have. But you are inherently alive, and one thing cannot arise out of what it is not.

Far more skilled as an orator than I ever hope to be.

 

[Totenkindly]

No one would argue unless they didn't have intuitions that appear to them to be to the contrary ... which is its own kind of evidence.

Consider this again.

Using this logic, everyone has valid justification to believe whatever they want to believe.

In order to communicate and reach consensus, the evidence used to form the opinion/intuition has to be available to everyone.

One can always make a case for believing, personally. But the goal is to make a case that others can follow and accept, isn't it?

Otherwise we left with an outcome of "everyone believes what they think is true, and there's no way to convince anyone otherwise."

...Be careful, therefore, not to rely too heavily on tautologies such as "things are what they are", which you hear people say sometimes. Knives all too often cut their wielders.

Death is surely death ... but what now is death? I ask, because it isn't clear what it is. To look at death and return with an idea of it is to have not died, and thus to have returned unaffected by death qua death ... how then could it ever be possible for you do have returned with any idea of it? It could not have affected you. Therefore, only you could have. But you are inherently alive, and one thing cannot arise out of what it is not.

Two key aspects here. Tangible evidence and physical death. To exist doesn't mean it must be in the physical form. Scientific evidence as you suggested, of such an existence is not tangible.

Of course it isn't. And that is the problem in reaching common ground that allows people to reach consensus.

The only "common ground" we have is tangible evidence. Everything else is more a matter of trying to convince someone else that we know more than they do, because we are privy to "special information/evidence" they don't have... and thus we enter rhetorical argument and it becomes merely a matter of who is more persuasive.

Also, realize that I have no problem with, but actual welcome faith in God. I'll put it to you this way. I hold a belief based on a deep feeling, or knowledge that I just cannot scientifically explain. You call it philosophical, I call it faith. It transcends all that is human and that is the point. God is supposed to be omnipotent and is supposed to be beyond our comprehension through tangible and scientific means. I just happen to believe. I find comfort and solace in it.

Good. Since I was a Christian for 35 years or so, and am at worst an agnostic theist right now, I have no problems with someone believing in God.

I just want to be clear about what can be shown ("proven") and what cannot. As long as people agree that there is no clear-cut evidential case for God and that this creates problems when it comes to finding common ground by which to persuade others, I don't have an issue. I only have problems when Christians claim otherwise and dismiss those who look at the same evidence pool and do not see God; based on evidence, either case can be made.

The bottom line seems to be that we choose what we want to believe, rather than it truly being derived as rationally as we pretend it to be.

Far more skilled as an orator than I ever hope to be.

I don't know what he's smoking... but I'd like me some of it.

 

[JonJT]

Of course it isn't. And that is the problem in reaching common ground that allows people to reach consensus.

The only "common ground" we have is tangible evidence. Everything else is more a matter of trying to convince someone else that we know more than they do, because we are privy to "special information/evidence" they don't have... and thus we enter rhetorical argument and it becomes merely a matter of who is more persuasive.



Good. Since I was a Christian for 35 years or so, and am at worst an agnostic theist right now, I have no problems with someone believing in God.

I just want to be clear about what can be shown ("proven") and what cannot. As long as people agree that there is no clear-cut evidential case for God and that this creates problems when it comes to finding common ground by which to persuade others, I don't have an issue. I only have problems when Christians claim otherwise and dismiss those who look at the same evidence pool and do not see God; based on evidence, either case can be made.

The bottom line seems to be that we choose what we want to believe, rather than it truly being derived as rationally as we pretend it to be.



I don't know what he's smoking... but I'd like me some of it.

Yes well, I'm not here to judge anyone or to force any doctrine or rhetoric upon anyone or anything. As you eluded to, we all have free wills and make decisions based on a mixture of what we believe to be rational evidence as well as faith. There is no anecdotal evidence based upon common scientific ground that every human can accept, hence believers and non believers. God is not produced in a petri dish under an microscope for all to see. Otherwise it wouldn't really be faith, would it?

And I too have a problem with Christians or believers of any other religions who pass judgment upon people, or try to force the issue. I'll never tell someone they are going to hell because they denounce God or do not practice a certain way. It is not my place to judge someone unless they directly and negatively influence myself or someone for whom I am responsible. And even then, I will only act to remove the negative influence that person has and not try to convert or change them. They will know my displeasure that thats the extent of my intervention.


And eh, his post was worded well. There is something alluring about being able to produce a convoluted post that says something very simple.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes well, I'm not here to judge anyone or to force any doctrine or rhetoric upon anyone or anything. As you eluded to, we all have free wills and make decisions based on a mixture of what we believe to be rational evidence as well as faith. There is no anecdotal evidence based upon common scientific ground that every human can accept, hence believers and non believers. God is not produced in a petri dish under an microscope for all to see. Otherwise it wouldn't really be faith, would it?

Of course it wouldn't be. But I guess you still see the problem in taking that as a stance... because then anyone can believe anything, as part of "their faith."

Are some faiths more reasonable than others?

And eh, his post was worded well. There is something alluring about being able to produce a convoluted post that says something very simple.

Actually, I found it unnecessarily confusing and was poking some fun at it in my last post. So I can understand better, what exactly did you find so alluring about it?

 

[JonJT]

Of course it wouldn't be. But I guess you still see the problem in taking that as a stance... because then anyone can believe anything, as part of "their faith."

Are some faiths more reasonable than others?



Actually, I found it unnecessarily confusing and was poking some fun at it in my last post. So I can understand better, what exactly did you find so alluring about it?

Some faiths are unequal to others only when judged on the basis of other faiths. Christians believe satanists to be idolaters because the Christian faith says so. Personally, I don't know how I feel in the context of the Bible because I'm quite confused about what being a Christian and a believer means. All I can say for sure is that I really do believe God exists. Morally though, I do have opinions. If I feel the faith is morally wrong, then I will say so if asked. My moral identity is a combination of lessons learned from my parents, from my own mind and from popular external religious and moral sources (although up until this point they are more subtle than the first two). Although, my moral identity is distinct from my religious one simply because I have yet to develop a religious identity. Another persons faith is specific to that person and is a manifestation of their free will. I don't believe any faith is built upon rationally derived truths or scientific facts. It's the amalgamation of thoughts and feelings based on the processes of your [irrational] mind and heard. Such is the definition of faith. Science or philosophy has no place in determining or validating any of my faiths. My faiths are based on my heart and my head and I extend the same definition to anyone and everyone else. Take note though, that this definition still allows for me to pass moral judgment upon someone else's faith as morality is a function of thought processes and experiences specific to myself and no one else. I also have a much better understanding of my own morality than I do my spirituality.

The implications of a "false" religious faith are between the person holding that false faith and God. It's not my place to chastise someone for having a faith that I believe to be false in the eyes of God. If that other person would want to hear what I have to say, then I would tell them, but I would do so respectfully. Notice my last sentence is in the future tense as I do not feel I posses the knowledge to answer even simple questions about Christianity or form opinions about other faiths from the context of the Bible.

The context of the post was not what I found alluring. I just have always felt convolution of a simple topic through large words was......cool. Brevity does have it's place though. But being able to speak like Charles Dickens wrote (not saying that antireconciler can do this) has always appealed to me. 11 page description of a Christmas dinner anyone???

Jennifer, why did you lose your faith?

 

[INTJMom]

...
There is something alluring about being able to produce a convoluted post that says something very simple.

I knew an INTP wrote this!

 

[Xander]

Firstly, damn. I meant to read this thread like days ago and now upon reading it I was thinking of giving red13 a whole lot of rep for being brave and just laying it on the line. Of course I find out half way down that he's gone. Damn.

Secondly I don't think it's possible to ascertain for certain that one school of thought is any better than another, they are all unproven bunk at present. As such each should be treated with equal amounts of criticism and praise.

Thirdly, it may seem strange to support someone who effectively said that religious people are weak whilst simultaneously supporting the idea that faith deserves as much recognition as cynicism but to my mind it takes a whole lot more in the way of bravery to stand up to what could be a hundred people and tell them that you think they're talking rubbish than it does to stand with the hundred or to mute your message. Sure it lacked a little diplomacy but I think the message itself was sound. When all logical inquiries have been made into religion and if your lucky enough to have gotten confident that mystical stuff doesn't happen then the only remaining conclusion which bears any credulity (or the only one I can think of right now ) is that perhaps those with faith have stood out in the midday sun a bit too long. Now I do have people who are important to me who have faith so I've tried to come to a position where I do not offend nor "knock about" my friends and relatives who have faith but that does not remove the thinking in my head of "How can you? What is the? Huh? ". It's for that reason that I applaud red13's straight up post, though I do admit that it could use at least some sugar coating

As for why an NT would embrace religion I would assume it would be for precisely the same reasons as anyone else would. None of the reasons which I have heard or read seem to be reasoned out theories as to why their religion is valid so I have to assume that the reason for having faith is without reason in such a crude manner as a logical process and that therefore there would be no real observable difference in the reasoning for one type having faith as opposed to another. Their type, within the context of this particular facet, seems irrelevant.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Aside: I'm starting to cringe every time I see the word "proof" in this thread. There are actually many different standards of proof, and none are universal. I am not simply referring to a religious context, but for any context. In order to "prove" something in a religious context, you need to use some type of standard of proof that is universal to a religious context.

 

[Xander]

Aside: I'm starting to cringe every time I see the word "proof" in this thread. There are actually many different standards of proof, and none are universal. I am not simply referring to a religious context, but for any context. In order to "prove" something in a religious context, you need to use some type of standard of proof that is universal to a religious context.

Actually yours is the only post with proof in it

(You, Bluewing, Jennifer and myself have mentioned prove or proven though )

I should clarify, now that you mention it, that I refer to objective proof. Just in case.