Matt Dillahunty is a host from the call-in public access television show called "The Atheist Experience." I'm really interested in your ideas on his type. He's the dude with the funny hat in the first video.
Matt Dillahunty is a host from the call-in public access television show called "The Atheist Experience." I'm really interested in your ideas on his type. He's the dude with the funny hat in the first video.
I'm going ENTj.
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
The intelligent type.
I'm not an athiest for many reasons. A few:
1. If you meditate properly and for long enough, you really can feel your spirit 'filled up' from the inside, and you realize that with a lot of dedicated practice, you don't have to be a victim to the material world.
2. How can nothing create a something? Even basic science tells us, to get something we need more something out of something. Who created the first 'something' the first 'matter?'
3. People don't like that there might be some moral law out there governing everything. The very idea frightens them, because it makes people self-reflect and be introspective, something most people don't like doing because it appears not to have anything to do with our desires. And a lot of people take this as a personal attack on their personality or identity, and of course when the ego is attacked, it becomes defensive. That is why, a truly humble man is sooo powerful.
4. Most people think they are a 'good guy' when they're really not. To be fair, both atheists and Christians criticize each other of this, but both are hypocrites. Any clue or indicator that makes people realize what they're morally doing to people is of huge value. Just because there's a few intellectual things in the bible that are incorrect, is no reason to throw away the morals or life lessons. People are retarded. If you want something that's 100%' correct, all the time' play with a calculator.
5. People also hate morals because there's no way to gauge or systemize them. You can't really create a 'job' out of morality is what I'm saying. People like things boxed in a lot, or something, they like to institutionalize things in pretty neat boxes. You can't do that when dealing with a human being and their problems, though- and that's what drives people crazy.
ESFp
Ti-PoLR guy
Yeah me too. I've just been making up typings for famous people in the past few days. Trying to gauge the difficulty of what other users are going through, and testing if I can sway their opinions by having no rationale. Social experiment.
"Why haven't you been PMed?"
I'll say nothing more.
Clearly he has logical and linear thinking, as in the second-third vid he was easily able to grasp the points of the opposition's argument and paraphrase them for listeners, as well as address them. I think he's a Te ego. His statements are sharp but not unforgiving if you catch my meaning; he clearly has a developed system of personal ethical principles.
However, TBH, his job can be held by most types of the socion and produce similiar results; I don't see much that really defines a certain type aside from his grasp of formal logic. He seems dedicated to his work and for a variety of other surface observations, I am thinking LIE tentatively.
Not like this post is on topic or anything; I just feel that the confidence in these judgements are misplaced and need to be addressed.
1. Your personal spiritual experiences are generally your business and experienced by you only, so claiming that your specific experience is availiable as evidence is poor use of logic.
2. You suppose that god created god who created another god and so forth; if we follow that line of thought, something always created something and it goes on back into infinitum, meaning there is no actual 'god'.
3. There is no moral law whether god exists or not; if you try to obtain his moral law you will be interpreting religious texts, and you've got 100s of branches of christianity to choose from, as well as the ones that allow you to form your own judgements.
4. Well of course; everyone is the good guy. This is because moral systems are subjective whether you conform to religion or not for the reasons in 3.
5. Let me try to understand; you say that people hate morals which attempt to objectively systemize all people by setting universal standards of conduct because people like to institutionalize things in neat boxes? By your own account, it sounds as though morals are in the interests of those who wish to put things in boxes..
Also, keep in mind that the majority of 'people' aren't athiest.