Religious Soap Box

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Continued from the ILI appreciation thread.

Cyclops: "The trap of religion? Perhaps you should start a new thread in anything goes rather than use ILI appreciation thread as a soap box for your views. Among other things you (seemingly unwittingly) have said. For instance that only those with ego N are able to think, (which is pretty much what your saying in regards to deciding/thinking - with religion as your example.):

No, you got me wrong, although I could have been a great deal more careful with my words. I'm sorry

I was just saying that ego N combat religion on it's own level. Dominate T however rely on another information that debunks Religion with out having to see it/fundamentally understand it. I'm not saying any type is better than another type. I was more or less attempting to bring light to the heavy accusation that N types are more religious.

Why are you so upset? I make no claims that Ni is better than Ti, that any type thinks better. Not only do I not have any way of telling because I cannot use other functions as of yet, but it seems to me that format is for the purpose of functions. That you can do so many things with one function and so many with another, so how would one function be better?

Further more, because you hurried me with your accusations, I believe type and religion are unrelated. The reason being that religion is not composed of one line of thought, that for some people it's not based on the ideas but the ideals. In order to quiet many critics, religion becomes well balanced in the different functions/ways of thinking, so as to attract a more diverse group.

Also, and my highest point, one type does not believe like another type. The train of thought/feeling that a person uses to define what belief is for them, contains very different types of information than another type would use. Therefore, because belief is contrasted greatly from type to type, it does not exist, for it is not standardized.

To Phaedrus who wrote: "If we look at the types of the most accentuated and aggressive atheist critics of religious beliefs, many of them are typed ENTp by Rick and others."

"most accentuated and aggressive atheist critics of religious beliefs..." according to who and not all? You people would rather knock me down before I make my point then ask what I'm getting at. You would rather assume that I don't have any valid point, than try to see what I'm talking about. Do you already attain all relevant information I hold? Do you already know everything I could show you? Am I an enemy of other types? Had I not previously said how much I admire LII?

Seek to understand and to be understood, not to discredit and intimidate.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

@Phaedrus

I misunderstood what you were saying when I read your reply. My mind was cloudy with trying to defend myself, I took everyone as accusing me. Hehe, I'm sorry.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think your attaching too much importance to the idea that (N types) specifically INTp's - right? [or maybe INFp, whatever] - are religious (if not more so etc etc). You seem to think that INTp's are associated with religion much more than what it actually is, to the point of stating things as facts, when the reality is not there.

For instance, not all ESTj's are managers, not all ISTp's are mechanics, certainly not all ESFp's are politicians.

So to hurry you along, it seems to me what your really getting at is that you possibly think Ni is misinterpreted. I think it possibly is being misinterpreted by yourself, or at least how you think it is by others.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

So to hurry you along, it seems to me what your really getting at is that you possibly think Ni is misinterpreted. I think it possibly is being misinterpreted by yourself, or at least how you think it is by others.

Hey Cyclops,

No, I'm going from Socionics.com and what they have to say about the ILI. I guess you could say that Socionics.com is nothing but a parody site made for flame, from the kind of things they have to say about ILI. Also what did I say as fact?

I've noticed that I do "say things as fact" and tend to upset people who come along to correct me. But I really don't say things as if they were fact in the way that you people perceive, but I say things so as to suppose and not as to claim.

I really should put a disclaimer as my signature. When I say something, it's usually to get other people to say something and to draw conclusions from the gathered information, fishing, more or less. I don't say things to just state fact, but to gather information. I wouldn't interact if I already knew, I interact because I need to know.

It's good to present something with holes and get other people to fill them.

If I have any role at all in this forum, it's to point at things I find interesting. I don't make claims as fact, but claims in order to direct replies. I don't consider anything I say to be factual, even if I give references.

It takes psychological issues in order to become imbalanced. It takes imbalance in order to look at things with new perspectives, it takes new perspectives in order come about new information, and new information can be very useful if not just entertaining. I don't know about you, but I want to be entertained.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Hey Cyclops,

Hello.

No, I'm going from Socionics.com and what they have to say about the ILI. I guess you could say that Socionics.com is nothing but a parody site made for flame, from the kind of things they have to say about ILI. Also what did I say as fact?

Yes I am going by that for one thing, as did you not say in an earlier post that everyone at socionics.com associated religion with INTp? This is incorrect, yet you state it as fact.

Also, you say here that socionics.com is a parody site made for flame. This is interesting as pretty much in the space of this week..a few days ago, you said there that is it the best socionics site there is. So what are you saying? I have decided not to speculate. There could be something else there. If your not sure of what 'they' say at socionics.com about ILI, perhaps you could discuss it with them?

I've noticed that I do "say things as fact" and tend to upset people who come along to correct me. But I really don't say things as if they were fact in the way that you people perceive, but I say things so as to suppose and not as to claim.

Just for the record, you haven't upset me. My 'opinion' on you - if I wish to form one, is still open. Although perhaps you could explain what you mean by referring to me as 'you people'? What group do you have me in?

I really should put a disclaimer as my signature. When I say something, it's usually to get other people to say something and to draw conclusions from the gathered information, fishing, more or less. I don't say things to just state fact, but to gather information. I wouldn't interact if I already knew, I interact because I need to know.

Sure. People may need to clarify this with you, it is unusual to state something as fact when you think it isn't, although I suspect that you can see that as useful to cover yourself when in debate etc.

It's good to present something with holes and get other people to fill them.

That sounds something akin to the ILI critic, although perhaps this is something you view as an unfair 'stereotype'?

If I have any role at all in this forum, it's to point at things I find interesting. I don't make claims as fact, but claims in order to direct replies. I don't consider anything I say to be factual, even if I give references.

It takes psychological issues in order to become imbalanced. It takes imbalance in order to look at things with new perspectives, it takes new perspectives in order come about new information, and new information can be very useful if not just entertaining. I don't know about you, but I want to be entertained.

It's pretty much why were all here, although that entertainment manifests in different ways for different people.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Hello.

I can see that there is a lot of difference between a '.' and a ','.

Either you're SG or a his sympathizer, perhaps both. And if you frequent that site enough to have read my post*quite singular*, you would know he banned me. So I can't exactly discuss anything with him on that site. When did I say "everyone"?

I said it was the best Socionics site that I had seen, because it really was the best one that I had yet seen. I'm currently of the opinion that wikisocion.org is the best Socionics site I've seen. For my remark about it being a flame site? I was and still am very agitated at how they dismiss the ILI. The crude jokes they tolerate regarding that type, and the amount of censorship regarding any return compliment, are beyond the bounds of my toleration.

It's obvious that I don't hate you SG, I wouldn't have taken your link to this site if that were true. I think you're him because you said "There could be something else there." which is quite his statement. You might argue, but your form says different to me.

As for the "you people" comment I made, that was a "my bad". Such gross generalizations is something I really need to tone down. However for the record, I meant people who take what I say in a completely wrong note according to what I meant or was going for. I'm not with out fault for that though, so I'll absorb the undesired result.

As for the disclaimer? I'm going to change my signature accordingly. You say it's useful to me so as to cover myself in debate? It's just that people take what I say in a way I did not intend. So to withdraw can become a better option when things get to hectic. It's not really a matter of who is right or wrong in my eyes. I really just like end results, let people think what they think, who is worthy of changing it? Sure their is a right and wrong with in the context of a block of information. But as none of us have all the information, why hurt feelings in the manner, ignorance is human nature, one which we cannot overcome.

"That sounds something akin to the ILI critic, although perhaps this is something you view as an unfair 'stereotype'?"

I know I generalize, but you are doing it as well. Unfair stereotype, I was upset and still am, I think you know why. You however are of the opinion that if one thing you said in regard to ILI is true, the rest does follow. Seeing that you know what goes on at Socionics.com forums, you know all the ILI bashing present. Saying that the ILI has a kaleidoscope jammed in their forehead for a dominate function, speculating that we see things in a haze while the LII has absolute clarity of ideas by contrast. A big picture all out of focus to a perfect picture that is zoomed in. However, I do see things clearly, and they are also zoomed in so to speak. Is it not true that the LII and the ILI think and talk about the same subjects, the difference being in the type of information and what they do with it? Information is multidimensional with relation to all it interacts with. What makes 'some people" at Socionics.com think the LII has thoughts that cannot be added to. You would be upset to, if the roles were reversed.

Anyway, I don't mean to come off as vulgar or one looking to argue. Although I can get pretty aggravated and set loose some rather unchewed comments. I tend to just as easily drop what I was saying and move onto some other subject for having been distracted and taken to deep loss of motivation.

Yes, entertainment*smiles*. The things that I have to talk about. Most of all of which are not at all controversial. I'd like to talk about patterns with in creative writing, possible systems for artificial intelligence. A lot of the ideas that I'd put out there are pretty well done already, they just need some more work. Perhaps this would be a good place to talk about them, I'll have to see

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I am not SG. The comments you referred to were debate, and I recall that particular debate, knowing the person who made the comments as I do, were certainly not intended to offend, as I know this person to be fond of ILI's.

The fact of the matter is, if there is something in a debate you do not agree with, then you raise your point. It is unproductive and childish to go around bitching and complaining to other people who have nothing to do with it.

In regards to socionics.com, I believe you would still be able to access the q&a section. Of course you cannot now respond in the forum section, however if you think it is wise to insult the site owner, be generally disrespectful and condescending to him, while at the same time asking for his help, and expect not to be banned, then perhaps you should re-assess your actions and apportioning of the blame.

On checking, it appears you received a ban not for your socionic views, but due to your 'spiteful attitude' and being a 'prick' - these are pretty much the quotes.

Incase it does - I have no wish to embarrass you, but I also have no wish to view incorrect information.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

In regards to socionics.com, I believe you would still be able to access the q&a section. Of course you cannot now respond in the forum section, however if you think it is wise to insult the site owner, be generally disrespectful and condescending to him, while at the same time asking for his help, and expect not to be banned, then perhaps you should re-assess your actions and apportioning of the blame.

On checking, it appears you received a ban not for your socionic views, but due to your 'spiteful attitude' and being a 'prick' - these are pretty much the quotes.

Incase it does - I have no wish to embarrass you, but I also have no wish to view incorrect information.

And you said you're not SG? You would be spiteful too if the roles were reversed. You kept the exact wording and points as SG, I'm guessing that it's to your benefit that you remain anonymous. "Embarrass" me? Who ever said I was asking for the help of Mr. SG? That was your/his concoction. Something to do with a bigot complex. I don't think SG wants me using his Q&A section anyway. You remind me of that one Fantastic 4 comment, what was it... "Flame On!"?

[Logos]

Java says stuff here.

Have you visited Wikisocion.org yet?

[Phaedrus]

@Phaedrus

I misunderstood what you were saying when I read your reply. My mind was cloudy with trying to defend myself, I took everyone as accusing me. Hehe, I'm sorry.

No problem. (What did you think that I was saying? That would actually be interesting to know. I could perhaps learn something from it.)

I'm not at all sure that Rick has typed Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. correctly as ENTps. Since my view on religion and science in general seems to be almost identical to theirs, I of course have to wonder if at least one such thinker could perhaps be INTp instead. Einstein is another example of an atheist with similar world view as my own, though his atheism was not as clearly accentuated and certainly not as aggressive as for example Dawkins. I sympathize with Dawkin's stance to nearly 100 % though. An interesting note is also that Rick has typed Ayn Rand (atheist too of course) as ENTp. I don't think that she is ENTp, but I am still unsure of her correct NT type.

[Logos]

No problem. (What did you think that I was saying? That would actually be interesting to know. I could perhaps learn something from it.)

I'm not at all sure that Rick has typed Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. correctly as ENTps. Since my view on religion and science in general seems to be almost identical to theirs, I of course have to wonder if at least one such thinker could perhaps be INTp instead. Einstein is another example of an atheist with similar world view as my own, though his atheism was not as clearly accentuated and certainly not as aggressive as for example Dawkins. I sympathize with Dawkin's stance to nearly 100 % though. An interesting note is also that Rick has typed Ayn Rand (atheist too of course) as ENTp. I don't think that she is ENTp, but I am still unsure of her correct NT type.

Agreeing with a person's views does not nor should not indicate an equality of type. And approaching it as = atheism and rational is equally stupid. So put your self-proclaimed objectivity to good use, watch out, and heed your own advice.

[Phaedrus]

Agreeing with a person's views does not nor should not indicate an equality of type.

No, but agreeing with a person's whole world view is at least a slight indication of that. At least you know for sure that for example Richard Dawkins is an NT type based on his view on religion and science in general in combination with how he argues for those views.

And approaching it as = atheism and rational is equally stupid.

I have never suggested that exact correlation.

So put your self-proclaimed objectivity to good use, watch out, and heed your own advice.

That's exactly what I do.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Have you visited Wikisocion.org yet?

Hey Logos,

Yes I have, I've only gone through a few profiles but I do love that site so far. That's really all I ever wanted, the information vault as it were.

[Brilliand]

No, but agreeing with a person's whole world view is at least a slight indication of that. At least you know for sure that for example Richard Dawkins is an NT type based on his view on religion and science in general in combination with how he argues for those views.

Agreeing with specific points probably isn't indicative of type; agreeing with ways of explaining those points probably is. I'm thinking of your Einstein example - he was an atheist, but he behaved in a very different way from other atheists. Actually, I might say he was a pantheist... he had a rather mystical attitude at times.

[Logos]

No, but agreeing with a person's whole world view is at least a slight indication of that. At least you know for sure that for example Richard Dawkins is an NT type based on his view on religion and science in general in combination with how he argues for those views.

Really? Because I also recall a past thread that suggested LSE as a possible type for him.

[Phaedrus]

Agreeing with specific points probably isn't indicative of type; agreeing with ways of explaining those points probably is.

Yes, in a way. But agreeing with specific points can also be related to it, at least indirectly, if you agree on so many specific points that they constitute a whole world outlook.

I'm thinking of your Einstein example - he was an atheist, but he behaved in a very different way from other atheists.

Yes, Einstein was less agressive than Dawkins or this guy:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bjOyt9PBzA&feature=related[/ame]

whose views on religion I probably agree with completely in most respects.

Actually, I might say he was a pantheist... he had a rather mystical attitude at times.

Yes, but every pantheist is an atheist. Pantheism is just another way of expressing the same things that I, and almost every other atheist, agree with. It doesn't add anything to our understanding to call someone a pantheist.

[Phaedrus]

Really? Because I also recall a past thread that suggested LSE as a possible type for him.

To say that something is indicative of type, is not the same thing as saying that it is indicative of a specific type. And I probably don't believe that Dawkins is an LSE. I don't remember if I tended to agree with that type suggestion in the past or not. I don't know Dawkins exact type, but I surely want to know it. One hypothesis is that the kind of views that I am talking about are related to Te somehow. And now we have another hypothesis that says that it could be related to leading Ne or Ni. I don't know the explanation yet, but one way or the other overall world outlooks must be type related.

[Logos]

Yes, but every pantheist is an atheist. Pantheism is just another way of expressing the same things that I, and almost every other atheist, agree with. It doesn't add anything to our understanding to call someone a pantheist.

Misconception out of the wazoo! I recommend reading Michael Levine's work Pantheism: a non-theistic concept of deity, which is one of the rare scholarly books specifically about pantheism. Pantheism is NOT atheism nor is it theism. Despite how one plans on splitting hairs, a careful examination of the philosophical components of pantheistic thought reveals aspects which are clearly un-atheistic. Get thee to a pantheism study chamber!

ETA: That guy's views are not that radical as there are probably a good number of liberal Christians who would probably agree with him.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Agreeing with a person's views does not nor should not indicate an equality of type. And approaching it as = atheism and rational is equally stupid. So put your self-proclaimed objectivity to good use, watch out, and heed your own advice.

I hope you did not get that impression from me.

[Phaedrus]

Misconception out of the wazoo! I recommend reading Michael Levine's work Pantheism: a non-theistic concept of deity, which is one of the rare scholarly books specifically about pantheism. Pantheism is NOT atheism nor is it theism.

Read what I write accurately, please. I have never said that pantheism equals atheism. Just because you are an atheist it doesn't imply that you are a pantheist of course. I have only said that every pantheist is necessarily an atheist.

Despite how one plans on splitting hairs, a careful examination of the philosophical components of pantheistic thought reveals aspects which are clearly un-atheistic. Get thee to a pantheism study chamber!

Study more conceptual logic so you want make the logical errors in reasoning that you made in your response to what I said.

[Brilliand]

Read what I write accurately, please. I have never said that pantheism equals atheism. Just because you are an atheist it doesn't imply that you are a pantheist of course. I have only said that every pantheist is necessarily an atheist.

And I consider that an unusual definition of "atheist." Purely by etymology, pantheism (all is god) is the opposite extreme from atheism (there is no god/without god). Pantheism is more along the lines of Hindu, New Age, etc.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Something that has been touched on here and there on one of these threads, it appears N type have some sort of interest in religion. Infact, to look at one group ..INTp's I know..here and IRL..they seem to have more interest in religion than S equivalent overall..at least in general. Indeed, philosophy has oft at times been connected with religion. Sometimes religion is philosophical.

Just some observations.

[Logos]

I hope you did not get that impression from me.

Not from you but from Phaedrus.

Read what I write accurately, please. I have never said that pantheism equals atheism. Just because you are an atheist it doesn't imply that you are a pantheist of course. I have only said that every pantheist is necessarily an atheist.

Study more conceptual logic so you want make the logical errors in reasoning that you made in your response to what I said.

That is still in error. So it is not I that needs to study more on this matter, and I have already pointed you to a book that will hopefully clear up this misconception for you.

[Logos]

IMO, most people Michael Levine say are pantheists and not atheists would call Michael Levine full of shit.

Yes, it's rigorous scholastic study, yes it's a careful examination...

Yes, I understand probably why he writes this, he wants a palatable school of thought for the theists who doubt, and want some kind of alternative without getting to the huge cat fight over the specific terms. Most religious people have a personal problem with being called a athiest, ok, good PR, let's go with it.

Yes it's about belief, blah, blah, blah, scholastic stuff here..

But really what it's about is answering questions of doubt and nihilism that arise from growing doubt in theistic religion in the modern world.

It's about what is good, it's about what is ethics, it's about hope.

In the end, it's about appealing to a piece of the human brain that dares not doubt.

That's quite dismissive of you of not only me but also of the breadth of religious thought. I somehow expected more from you. If you were talking about that bullshit "scientific pantheism" that came with the World Pantheist Movement, then I would agree with you.

[force my hand]

And I consider that an unusual definition of "atheist." Purely by etymology, pantheism (all is god) is the opposite extreme from atheism (there is no god/without god). Pantheism is more along the lines of Hindu, New Age, etc.

It's interesting because it can be spun either way. I think certain views - say, scientific pantheism - are closer to atheism than theism. If not strictly in the abstract sense, than certainly how those terms are applied to real belief systems.

[Logos]

It's interesting because it can be spun either way. I think certain views - say, scientific pantheism - are closer to atheism than theism. If not strictly in the abstract sense, than certainly how those terms are applied to real belief systems.

Yes. Beliefs are far more multidimensional than we give them credit for being, since we do not like it when they do not fit in prepackaged boxes of theism, deism, panentheism, or atheism.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

All this interest in religion, how can you deny that N types..maybe specifically Ni types (possibly) have a connection with religion, and the spiritual, is beyond me.

[Brilliand]

All this interest in religion, how can you deny that N types..maybe specifically Ni types (possibly) have a connection with religion, and the spiritual, is beyond me.

There's also the T aspect. And there's the whole SF aspect of religion as a social group...

But yeah, I think spirituality is related to N. Not that there's really anyone who is without N...

[crazedrat]

Saying Ni is connected with religion.... first you need to define religion. There are different ways a person can be religious. If you were to talk about religion in a traditionalist sense, I would argue Alpha SF types would be the most religious. ...

[Logos]

Saying Ni is connected with religion.... first you need to define religion. There are different ways a person can be religious. If you were to talk about religion in a traditionalist sense, I would argue Alpha SF types would be the most religious. ...

And I would argue Beta NF. Ni + Fe + valued Se + Ti.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Saying Ni is connected with religion.... first you need to define religion. There are different ways a person can be religious. If you were to talk about religion in a traditionalist sense, I would argue Alpha SF types would be the most religious. ...

Define religion in a traditionalist sense then. (Why are you calling something traditionalist religion, when you just said in your previous sentence we need to define religion first?)

And defining religion-and spirituality-and philosophy-I'm not sure one has to 'define' these things to see how they are connected..and then after that to have you possibly disagree that Ni types are not more interested in these sort of things that at least most other types.

[Mediator Kam]

Also it's possible to be atheistic to some gods but not all gods.

How is your god of the harvest making out?

[crazedrat]

Define religion in a traditionalist sense then. (Why are you calling something traditionalist religion, when you just said in your previous sentence we need to define religion first?)

And defining religion-and spirituality-and philosophy-I'm not sure one has to 'define' these things to see how they are connected..and then after that to have you possibly disagree that Ni types are not more interested in these sort of things that at least most other types.

...the word traditionalist acts as a modifier on the word religion, further defining it. get it?
From what you said in your second paragraph, you are compartmentalizing the word (defining) religion into a philosophical & or spiritual interpretation / modification ...

What I said was alluding to there being multiple ways to think of what a religion is, and that it means a variety of different things to different people.

For example... for alph SF types, from my observations (and this is speculative), it seems to be more about the experience of community & the upholding of traditions; & the actualization of the ideal community setting, then about introspective thought & philosophical realization. They would care alot more about "going to church" then about "looking deep inside their minds"

... That is just an example of a different idea of what a religion is. Whether it holds true to all alpha SF types is another issue... I doubt it does, but you get the point

[Creepy-Cyclops]

...the word traditionalist acts as a modifier on the word religion, further defining it. get it?
From what you said in your second paragraph, you are compartmentalizing the word (defining) religion into a philosophical & or spiritual interpretation / modification ...

What I said was alluding to there being multiple ways to think of what a religion is, and that it means a variety of different things to different people.

For example... for alph SF types, from my observations (and this is speculative), it seems to be more about the experience of community & the upholding of traditions; & the actualization of the ideal community setting, then about introspective thought & philosophical realization. They would care alot more about "going to church" then about "looking deep inside their minds"

... That is just an example of a different idea of what a religion is. Whether it holds true to all alpha SF types is another issue... I doubt it does, but you get the point

This topics old before it's even properly started. I dunno, there's something about your overall tone and specific parts that just make me wanna tell you to fuck off. I think it's your overall condescending tone which is more like a list of insults rather than a debate, but then fair enough maybe I'm just in a funny mood today.

However, I can tell that you've either studied or spent a long time thinking about either religion, philosophy or both. I think, put loosely, that INTp's look for some sort of truth or overarching meaning, and at some point religion (and philosophy) is examined at some level. Your apparent interest in the subject, especially the apparent direction of your interest suggests this holds true for you also.

In any event, it appears you are able to grasp the philosophical context of 'religion' seeing as your looking to put it into different categories and different levels of interpretation, which is actually kind of my point.

I'm not really sure I want to discuss this with further. I even thought about deleting this post. If you post again here I probably won't reply.