Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 50

Thread: Delta Atheism

  1. #1
    Retired master of mistype and confusion DeleteMeModsPls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cool Delta Atheism

    I'm interested in learning more about the way Delta approaches atheism.
    Many atheists explain their views from an NT perspective and I would like to explore this realm the Delta way for a change.
    Like I'd love to read a book that would illustrate the Delta quadra arguments for being an atheist, by someone who actually gave a fuck to write such a manifesto.
    A messy thread, but I'd love to hear your recommendations

  2. #2
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Delta atheism may have a view similar to that of John Stuart Mill, who said that "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other. If it be meant that utilitarianism does not recognise the revealed will of God as the supreme law of morals, I answer, that a utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God, necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals, must fulfil the requirements of utility in a supreme degree."

    Atheist Delta philosophers and writers may tend to have the view that there is an universality of human nature, that the maximizing of happiness (however defined) and utility (however defined) is the greatest good, and that morality comes from following your own conscience based on such tangible considerations: whether or not you find god as a result of this is of secondary importance.

    I don't know of any books specifically about the arguments for being an atheist by someone I am reasonably confident is a Delta type, but I think that would be the wrong kind of focus to have: Delta philosophies would generally consider the argument irrelevant, because if god exists, he is either as reasonable as you are, or he cannot be reasoned with: in each case, you follow your own conscience.

    edit: Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain may be a good example.

    I think Alain de Botton could be Delta: he has a website called The Book of Life which is fairly self-explanatory. He wrote a book called Religion for Atheists which I know nothing about and also has done a TED talk on that, but it does not seem to give arguments for atheism.

    Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson may have had secular Delta philosophies, as well as John Stuart Mill. Epicurus and Bertrand Russell have been typed as Deltans before, although they could feasibly be Alphans.

    The poem "O May I Join the Choir Invisible" is a very good secular poem by someone who was probably Delta - George Eliot.

  3. #3
    Retired master of mistype and confusion DeleteMeModsPls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    A REALLY CONSTRUCTIVE POST
    Thank you very much

  4. #4
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koneser View Post
    Thank you very much
    I'm sorry, but the arguments for not believing in the existence of gods are generally universal - the distinction is how you should act when you have the knowledge that gods do not exist. The arguments for gods are generally of an indirect kind, and suppose that the gods are a necessity that we cannot live practical and moral lives without.

  5. #5
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Junipero
    TIM
    EII 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Delta philosophies would generally consider the argument irrelevant, because if god exists, he is either as reasonable as you are, or he cannot be reasoned with: in each case, you follow your own conscience.
    I identify with this so much. My favorite quote in favor of atheism is attributed to Marcus Aurelius: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid."
    @Subteigh Do you have a guess as to George Eliot's type within Delta?

  6. #6
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not atheist but some Delta I know are. Delta value morals and ethics. Not that morals (being a good person) comes from religion but God guides and provides principles for moral framework. Delta are able to forgive so much because they look at intentions above acts
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  7. #7
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economist View Post
    I identify with this so much. My favorite quote in favor of atheism is attributed to Marcus Aurelius: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid."
    @Subteigh Do you have a guess as to George Eliot's type within Delta?
    I agree with this quote %100 but I want to emphasize the conclusion is to live a good life, not that God doesn't exist

  8. #8
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Junipero
    TIM
    EII 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I agree with this quote %100 but I want to emphasize the conclusion is to live a good life, not that God doesn't exist
    Sure, it's more of an argument for why living atheistically is morally OK, not for why atheism is "true." Like what I quoted from Subteigh, the point is that Delta might not care so much about the philosophical aspects like whether atheism is literally true--these things are unprovable, after all. Delta is more interested about the practical aspects like how to live one's life.

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economist View Post
    Sure, it's more of an argument for why living atheistically is morally OK, not for why atheism is "true." Like what I quoted from Subteigh, the point is that Delta might not care so much about the philosophical aspects like whether atheism is literally true--these things are unprovable, after all. Delta is more interested about the practical aspects like how to live one's life.
    absolutely

  10. #10
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure I understand why Delta Quadra wouldn't value what is true. Te is concerned with factual accuracy and that's a valued function of the Delta Quadra. In my view, the lack of evidence in favor of religion is sufficient to not believe. I do think that Deltas would likely also focus on the morality of it as well, especially the ethical types

  11. #11
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Junipero
    TIM
    EII 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    I'm not sure I understand why Delta Quadra wouldn't value what is true. Te is concerned with factual accuracy and that's a valued function of the Delta Quadra. In my view, the lack of evidence in favor of religion is sufficient to not believe. I do think that Deltas would likely also focus on the morality of it as well, especially the ethical types
    Of course we value truth, but we value useful, knowable truth. I think we dislike endless debates over philosophical ideas, since we can't just bring in observable facts to win the debate. I agree that any individual religion lacks evidence/is inconsistent/cannot be literally true, but I don't think there is or can be any observable factual evidence in favor of or against the existence of God.

    Totally agree about morality, I think that is one practical part of religion/the lack thereof that Deltas care about.

  12. #12
    chwoey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    I'm not sure I understand why Delta Quadra wouldn't value what is true. Te is concerned with factual accuracy and that's a valued function of the Delta Quadra. In my view, the lack of evidence in favor of religion is sufficient to not believe. I do think that Deltas would likely also focus on the morality of it as well, especially the ethical types
    I am pretty sure I am also an SLI and I completely agree with you. I would argue it makes very little sense for there to be a God and that is the reason I am athiest. No evidence or logical rationale for God.

  13. #13
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economist View Post
    @Subteigh Do you have a guess as to George Eliot's type within Delta?
    I've typed her EII - the World Socionics Society type her that way also (perhaps independently, certainly they have carried out their own evaluation). I think it is either that or something like EIE.

  14. #14
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    I'm not sure I understand why Delta Quadra wouldn't value what is true. Te is concerned with factual accuracy and that's a valued function of the Delta Quadra. In my view, the lack of evidence in favor of religion is sufficient to not believe. I do think that Deltas would likely also focus on the morality of it as well, especially the ethical types
    The key I think is that "god" is supposed to be the epitome of what is good, thus if we are unable to perceive a being with such properties in our lives or cannot believe the universe to be the creation of such a being, we may think along the lines of the famous argument attributed to Epicurus:

    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?"

    And consider also the Euthyphro dilemma (in Plato's Euthyphro dialogue - although Plato himself may not have been Delta!): "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

  15. #15
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ah, that makes sense, I was just looking at the question literally rather than figuratively. I tend to think that the morality behind it doesn't change the truth of it, and I can see how morality could be used as an argument in this instance as God is related to it, but I'm not really sure how one would go about defining what is moral since as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus on the matter

  16. #16
    Kyusaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    France
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's easier to be an atheist when things go well than when things go wrong. It's natural for human beings to pray in time of need, when there's nothing left but hope that the universe will hear your plea. Belief is a coping mechanism and the concern about the existence of God doesn't factor. That's my opinion at least.
    The gardener is but a dream of the garden.

  17. #17
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm an agnostic, but I'm kind of divorced from the whole debate of whether God exists or not and I am not interested in converting and convincing people to go from theist to agnostic or atheist. I'm more focused on other aspects perhaps because of my . I don't really look at it as a simple question, does God exist? That doesn't explore enough possible avenues. One question to ask if God exists is, what is he? Is he a bearded old man in the sky?

    Well, that just doesn't make any sense logically, so let's explore other avenues. Is God an alien far more advanced than us that spawned us from their own DNA? The question seems ridiculous, but if you compare ourselves to ants then we are gods compared to them in a sense because of our vastly superior size and intelligence. Surely, an alien that looks at us like ants could be a god if we looked at it from our inferior perspective.

    Take that even a step further and compare a human to bacteria, if the bacteria living inside of us understood and saw what we were, they would look at one of us as some kind of supreme being or god even though there are several billions of us. Perhaps, there is an extremely advanced alien species that looks at us the same way we look at bacteria? Finally, even though you are far more advanced than ants and bacteria, can you help them individually? Maybe, but realistically it makes more sense to help them as a large group.

    So to end this off, does God exist? I don't know, it depends on what you define as "God". If God exists to you as a bearded man in the sky like the bible portrays then no he does not exist, but if you are willing to see God exist in some other form that you are not accustomed to then maybe he exists and maybe he is one of many just like him. Finally, can God listen to your prayers? Ask yourself, do you listen to the prayers of bacteria or ants? Even if you could, would you listen to them and try to help them individually?

    Perhaps letting a bacteria colony or an ant colony do its own thing is more beneficial than trying to help it let alone helping individual ones. Perhaps, a more important question to ask what is outside of our universe or multiverse? Are we too tiny and insignificant to even notice what exists outside of our limited view? Maybe we find out the grand truth after death or maybe we enter blackness like not existing ever. I guess my point to all of this is that when you throw religious dogma out the window and look at life, the universe and the multiverse as an unsolvable mystery of endless possibilities for our minds to ponder about then that can give you much more satisfaction then simply deciding God exists or doesn't exist and leaving it at that.

    So, I think people should abandon religion if they want to free their mind spiritually, but in the same time, they don't need to abandon God once they leave religion. If they want to then that's fine, there's lots of logical reasons for doing it and I get why they do it, but if they want to keep their belief in God then that's fine too, some people need that in their every day life to get by and if they want to become an agnostic like myself then that works too.

    The reason I'm an agnostic is because perhaps in my nature I must explore many possibilities even if the possibilities I have thought up of nothing more than a figment of my imagination because the possibilities that exist in this life are endless for our limited minds. I also have no interest in converting people from religious to non-religious because I honestly don't care what other people believe in because you cannot force people to change their minds when it comes to things like this since only they can change their own minds when they are ready if they are ever ready and it applies to non-religious aspects as well.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  18. #18
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How about the argument from free will which argues that omniscience and free will are inherently incompatible?

  19. #19
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm really not sure why someone's atheism would be significantly different than any other person's. It's like trying to compare different shades of black.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  20. #20
    Kyusaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    France
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I'm an agnostic, but I'm kind of divorced from the whole debate of whether God exists or not and I am not interested in converting and convincing people to go from theist to agnostic or atheist. I'm more focused on other aspects perhaps because of my . I don't really look at it as a simple question, does God exist? That doesn't explore enough possible avenues. One question to ask if God exists is, what is he? Is he a bearded old man in the sky?

    Well, that just doesn't make any sense logically, so let's explore other avenues. Is God an alien far more advanced than us that spawned us from their own DNA? The question seems ridiculous, but if you compare ourselves to ants then we are gods compared to them in a sense because of our vastly superior size and intelligence. Surely, an alien that looks at us like ants could be a god if we looked at it from our inferior perspective.

    Take that even a step further and compare a human to bacteria, if the bacteria living inside of us understood and saw what we were, they would look at one of us as some kind of supreme being or god even though there are several billions of us. Perhaps, there is an extremely advanced alien species that looks at us the same way we look at bacteria? Finally, even though you are far more advanced than ants and bacteria, can you help them individually? Maybe, but realistically it makes more sense to help them as a large group.

    So to end this off, does God exist? I don't know, it depends on what you define as "God". If God exists to you as a bearded man in the sky like the bible portrays then no he does not exist, but if you are willing to see God exist in some other form that you are not accustomed to then maybe he exists and maybe he is one of many just like him. Finally, can God listen to your prayers? Ask yourself, do you listen to the prayers of bacteria or ants? Even if you could, would you listen to them and try to help them individually?

    Perhaps letting a bacteria colony or an ant colony do its own thing is more beneficial than trying to help it let alone helping individual ones. Perhaps, a more important question to ask what is outside of our universe or multiverse? Are we too tiny and insignificant to even notice what exists outside of our limited view? Maybe we find out the grand truth after death or maybe we enter blackness like not existing ever. I guess my point to all of this is that when you throw religious dogma out the window and look at life, the universe and the multiverse as an unsolvable mystery of endless possibilities for our minds to ponder about then that can give you much more satisfaction then simply deciding God exists or doesn't exist and leaving it at that.

    So, I think people should abandon religion if they want to free their mind spiritually, but in the same time, they don't need to abandon God once they leave religion. If they want to then that's fine, there's lots of logical reasons for doing it and I get why they do it, but if they want to keep their belief in God then that's fine too, some people need that in their every day life to get by and if they want to become an agnostic like myself then that works too.

    The reason I'm an agnostic is because perhaps in my nature I must explore many possibilities even if the possibilities I have thought up of nothing more than a figment of my imagination because the possibilities that exist in this life are endless for our limited minds. I also have no interest in converting people from religious to non-religious because I honestly don't care what other people believe in because you cannot force people to change their minds when it comes to things like this since only they can change their own minds when they are ready if they are ever ready and it applies to non-religious aspects as well.
    I believe the difference between God and humans, like between humans and bacteria, is nuance. The life of a bacteria is very much all or nothing, life or death, eat or be eaten, 0 or 1, like a simple transistor. While humans are like a computer, made of billions of cells that are pretty much like a bacteria. Our life is the shared experience of all our organs, all our cells, and it is much more nuanced than a binary system. So God is an entity which transcends our individuality, which is why the way I imagine It would be the shared experience of all self aware beings. It is infinitely more nuanced than us.

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    How about the argument from free will which argues that omniscience and free will are inherently incompatible?
    If you are aware of everything, then to our human minds, you are nothing in the face of overwhelming awareness. You are the universe and a slave to it's laws. But the universe might just be the manifestation of a superior being. So what we see as a predictable, laid bare universe, might just be understanding the workings of a being not affected by time on a very small scale of said time. To a being beyond time 14 billion years might be the span of a second. In any case we can't apply the limits of our logic to such a being.
    The gardener is but a dream of the garden.

  21. #21
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you are responsible for the laws of the universe, you have free will. However, if everything is definable by the laws of nature, any being within it cannot be said to have free will. Although I'm a determinist I don't think that is an especially important consideration for our everyday lives: society just has to make allowances for the level of control each individual has over their own actions.

    I consider the belief in something supernatural - something greater than nature - to be absurd. Such a position necessarily means you believe in something greater than the whole, which I find rather illogical and unprovable. If you hold that "god = nature", that is something I can actually comprehend, although I would find it as absurd as saying "supernature = nature".

  22. #22
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,706
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Since I type Hitchens LSE, I will post this here:



    Clarity of thought and expression, appealing to ethics, common sense and fairness (as opposed to emotions), using science and hard evidence to construct arguments, challenging people's critical faculties and incentivizing them to think for themselves. Those are Hitchens attributes, and the same would be prevalent in other Deltas. Not that they are exclusive to Deltas, but these are just some things that would tend to stand out, IMO.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  23. #23
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,706
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koneser View Post
    Like I'd love to read a book that would illustrate the Delta quadra arguments for being an atheist, by someone who actually gave a fuck to write such a manifesto.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  24. #24
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is he really LSE? His forceful attitude kind of reminds me more of Se valuers, I kind of assumed he was some Gamma type. I mean the title of the book "God is Not Great" is a statement of ethics, not logic and seems like Fi and Se to me.

    Edit: Actually I made a mistake here, but I will leave it to avoid any confusion. "great" in this usage is not an ethical term, but rather a measure of scope or size, which would be Se. Any connection of this statement to ethics was erroneous on my part as I was considering the colloquial usage of the word "great" (e.g. he's a great guy) rather than the actual definition

    Another Edit: I just noticed the subtitle was "How Religion Poisons Everything", which is a blatant negative Fi judgement. I think it's more likely to come from someone with Fi in ego, Te types usually are more factual and dry. Now I'm thinking maybe my initial interpretation was correct. Seems like Fi base with Se creative forcing their viewpoint. From what I can tell on the wiki there seems to be a very large focus on morality and corruption in religion and only small portions of it even touch whether religion is true or false, I don't see LSE at all. Look at all the loaded words in the titles- in my opinion this is more likely to come from an ethical type
    Last edited by AbZero; 03-26-2017 at 08:52 PM.

  25. #25
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    I'm not sure I understand why Delta Quadra wouldn't value what is true. Te is concerned with factual accuracy and that's a valued function of the Delta Quadra. In my view, the lack of evidence in favor of religion is sufficient to not believe. I do think that Deltas would likely also focus on the morality of it as well, especially the ethical types
    Morality is love
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scientia View Post
    I'm really not sure why someone's atheism would be significantly different than any other person's. It's like trying to compare different shades of black.
    And to think you call yourself Scientia.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Shrek is love
    Fixed that for you.

  28. #28
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alioth View Post
    Fixed that for you.
    Hehehe
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  29. #29
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alioth View Post
    And to think you call yourself Scientia.
    That was just a socially appropriate way to say that there is no scientific evidence for socionics, hence "delta", or any other quadrant, atheism is a stupid concept and a waste of time. There are many different reasons for being an atheist, but they aren't caused my imaginary functions. In the end it doesn't matter the reasons so much as an atheist just a lack of belief in a deity.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scientia View Post
    That was just a socially appropriate way to say that there is no scientific evidence for socionics, hence "delta", or any other quadrant, atheism is a stupid concept and a waste of time.
    "Scientia" means "knowledge." In no way does that word imply a pragmatic choice of what to study.

    There are many different reasons for being an atheist, but they aren't caused my imaginary functions. In the end it doesn't matter the reasons so much as an atheist just a lack of belief in a deity.
    If you really valued knowledge, you'd study such things for the sake of studying them alone. I'd say "it's not about WHAT, it's about WHY" or the like, but it would just sound like I'm spewing rhetoric.

    This is to say nothing of understanding people's psychological motivations, which are absolutely relevant and very evident in their philosophical beliefs, including the reasons for one's atheism. Your original post said nothing specifically about the link to socionics - it could be interpreted as you not caring for the philosophical underpinnings of one's atheism, which hints at an extremely unscientific mindset.

  31. #31
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alioth View Post
    "Scientia" means "knowledge." In no way does that word imply a pragmatic choice of what to study.


    If you really valued knowledge, you'd study such things for the sake of studying them alone. I'd say "it's not about WHAT, it's about WHY" or the like, but it would just sound like I'm spewing rhetoric.

    This is to say nothing of understanding people's psychological motivations, which are absolutely relevant and very evident in their philosophical beliefs, including the reasons for one's atheism. Your original post said nothing specifically about the link to socionics - it could be interpreted as you not caring for the philosophical underpinnings of one's atheism, which hints at an extremely unscientific mindset.
    I do not deny that people have different psychological motivations, only that cognitive functions exist in the first place, hence they cannot be the cause of one's philosophical perspective. Motivations are rather irrelevant to one's philosophical perspective, unless one is using that philosophy to manipulate and control others; they have more to do with what one believes to be true, such as a worldview. There are no psychological motivations for atheism. Someone either believes in a deity or they don't.

    As to the valuing of knowledge. Not all knowledge is equal. Some branches of knowledge are more true than others. It is important to know enough philosophy to discern the difference.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scientia View Post
    I do not deny that people have different psychological motivations, only that cognitive functions exist in the first place, hence they cannot be the cause of one's philosophical perspective.
    True though that may be, what we call "sociotypes" are still based upon traits observed in others, and many such traits are recognized in formal psychology. Your intrinsic psychological traits will absolutely affect your philosophical perspective to some degree.

    Motivations are rather irrelevant to one's philosophical perspective, unless one is using that philosophy to manipulate and control others; they have more to do with what one believes to be true, such as a worldview.
    What you believe to be true can and will influence what motivates you, or at least how you respond to these motivations. Also, I'm talking about the philosophical beliefs of others, not oneself.

    There are no psychological motivations for atheism. Someone either believes in a deity or they don't.
    Every motivation is psychological on one level or another. Psychology is as much the source of philosophy as it is of every other action you take, and you're a fool to deny that.


    And again, it's outright asinine to say anything of this magnitude is JUST a matter of "is or isn't." There is almost always so much more beneath the surface.

  33. #33
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alioth View Post
    True though that may be, what we call "sociotypes" are still based upon traits observed in others, and many such traits are recognized in formal psychology. Your intrinsic psychological traits will absolutely affect your philosophical perspective to some degree.
    Socionics is not only not a trait theory, it is not recognized as a valid theory within branch of Psychology. The Big Five is a trait based personality theory and is widely recognized as considerably more valid.

    What you believe to be true can and will influence what motivates you, or at least how you respond to these motivations. Also, I'm talking about the philosophical beliefs of others, not oneself.
    I'm not denying that belief can motivate one's behavior. I am skeptical that the cause of one's belief, or lack thereof, is the result of cognitive functions, as is being assumed with *insert quadrant* atheism.

    Every motivation is psychological on one level or another. Psychology is as much the source of philosophy as it is of every other action you take
    The first sentence is true. The second is false. Philosophy is how we have come to understand psychology. An incorrect philosophy may lead to insufficient understanding of the field known as Psychology. Maybe you are conflating motivation and belief? These are two different concepts. Even according to socionic theory, cognitive functions cause belief prior to motivation. For instance, Ti may cause a belief in a logical universe which may motivate one to pursue a field in the sciences. A person does not have to hold belief because they are motivated to have that belief. That doesn't make any logical sense. A person may be motivated to behave in a certain way or take up a particular philosophical stance because of the beliefs they hold. Beliefs are formed by a combination of experience, culture, education, etc. In other worlds, the beliefs one holds cannot be accounted for by socionics. They are much more complex than that.

    And again, it's outright asinine to say anything of this magnitude is JUST a matter of "is or isn't." There is almost always so much more beneath the surface.
    Name a valid psychological motivation for atheism then. A need for a psychological motivation for atheism sounds like a theistic confirmation bias.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scientia View Post
    The first sentence is true. The second is false. Philosophy is how we have come to understand psychology. An incorrect philosophy may lead to insufficient understanding of the field known as Psychology. Maybe you are conflating motivation and belief?
    Probably. And not so much "psychology" or "motivations" as "psychological biases." And when I say "motivation" I'm talking less about conscious choice and more about unconscious tendency.

    Don't think, for a moment, that anyone has ever been free from psychological bias, no matter how logical or self-evident his conclusions may have been.

    In other worlds, the beliefs one holds cannot be accounted for by socionics. They are much more complex than that.
    Yet, as you stated, you apparently don't care for the telltale causes of these beliefs, just the simple boolean of belief vs. disbelief. That shows a severe lack of curiosity, one not becoming of a person who likens himself to science.


    Name a valid psychological motivation for atheism then.
    Horrible past experiences with religion that justify an alienation from it in reaction? People can reach the same conclusions through different processes. There are types of Atheism other than Agnostic Atheism. And frankly it sounds like what you're trying to promote is actually Apatheism.

  35. #35
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,706
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    Is he really LSE? His forceful attitude kind of reminds me more of Se valuers, I kind of assumed he was some Gamma type. I mean the title of the book "God is Not Great" is a statement of ethics, not logic and seems like Fi and Se to me.

    Edit: Actually I made a mistake here, but I will leave it to avoid any confusion. "great" in this usage is not an ethical term, but rather a measure of scope or size, which would be Se. Any connection of this statement to ethics was erroneous on my part as I was considering the colloquial usage of the word "great" (e.g. he's a great guy) rather than the actual definition

    Another Edit: I just noticed the subtitle was "How Religion Poisons Everything", which is a blatant negative Fi judgement. I think it's more likely to come from someone with Fi in ego, Te types usually are more factual and dry. Now I'm thinking maybe my initial interpretation was correct. Seems like Fi base with Se creative forcing their viewpoint. From what I can tell on the wiki there seems to be a very large focus on morality and corruption in religion and only small portions of it even touch whether religion is true or false, I don't see LSE at all. Look at all the loaded words in the titles- in my opinion this is more likely to come from an ethical type
    He was an extroverted, gregarious, active, sociable, expansive, high levels of energy type of person. Thus, I type him an Extratim. He does have a somewhat forceful or, I would rather say, bold and forthright presence/attitude, but so do many sensory types, including myself (although to a lesser extent, probably). I think your analysis of his book title is ridiculous. It makes no sense to type a simple declarative statement someone used as their book title. And if you think he is "forcing his viewpoints", I would say you're either very ignorant or just unfamiliar with him and therefore misinterpreting what you've read about him and/or the book. If I had to guess, I'd say you're both. Especially after being informed—by you—that religion can be (or is) true or false.

    The only other palatable Socionics type for Hitch would be Te-LIE, enneagram type 8 variety. Or the more far-fetched SEE possibility. But I think he fits the LSE profile best.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  36. #36
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Park View Post
    He was an extroverted, gregarious, active, sociable, expansive, high levels of energy type of person. Thus, I type him an Extratim. He does have a somewhat forceful or, I would rather say, bold and forthright presence/attitude, but so do many sensory types, including myself (although to a lesser extent, probably). I think your analysis of his book title is ridiculous. It makes no sense to type a simple declarative statement someone used as their book title. And if you think he is "forcing his viewpoints", I would say you're either very ignorant or just unfamiliar with him and therefore misinterpreting what you've read about him and/or the book. If I had to guess, I'd say you're both. Especially after being informed—by you—that religion can be (or is) true or false.

    The only other palatable Socionics type for Hitch would be Te-LIE, enneagram type 8 variety. Or the more far-fetched SEE possibility. But I think he fits the LSE profile best.
    From what I could tell, he focused more on the ethical arguments than answering the question of whether or not God exists which to me indicates a preference for ethics over logic. Then again, I don't claim to know a lot about him, so I admit my view of him could be off

    The difference between logic and ethics is objective evaluation (true/false, correct/incorrect) vs subjective evaluation (good/bad, fantastic/horrible). I see more preference for subjective evaluation than objective evaluation in Christopher Hitchens
    Last edited by AbZero; 03-27-2017 at 05:05 PM.

  37. #37
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alioth View Post
    Probably. And not so much "psychology" or "motivations" as "psychological biases." And when I say "motivation" I'm talking less about conscious choice and more about unconscious tendency.

    Don't think, for a moment, that anyone has ever been free from psychological bias, no matter how logical or self-evident his conclusions may have been.


    Yet, as you stated, you apparently don't care for the telltale causes of these beliefs, just the simple boolean of belief vs. disbelief. That shows a severe lack of curiosity, one not becoming of a person who likens himself to science.



    Horrible past experiences with religion that justify an alienation from it in reaction? People can reach the same conclusions through different processes. There are types of Atheism other than Agnostic Atheism. And frankly it sounds like what you're trying to promote is actually Apatheism.
    You seem to be taking my username too seriously! I just like the word Scientia and thought it would make a good name. I am not calling myself knowledge or likening myself to science, lol.

    Please reread my original post in this thread, I was being facetious. We have been taking what I said in the wrong direction than what I originally intended. I was poking fun at the cognitive function explanation for everything theory. My main objection was toward the assumption that socionics was a sufficient justification for a lack of belief and that this leads to an objectively different kind of lack of belief than anyone else's. I may be guilty of overgeneralizing atheism out of a lack of understanding which direction our conversation was turning.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  38. #38
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All belief and lack of belief is explained by the Will to Power, which you are, pebble of sand

    Isn't that just

  39. #39
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    If there is no virtue in belief in the gods, and if you cannot force yourself to believe in something contrary to what you consider sufficient reason, then resolving whether the gods exist is essentially a pointless exercise.

  40. #40
    Retired master of mistype and confusion DeleteMeModsPls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If there is no virtue in belief in the gods
    Well, aren't there verses in the Bible that indicate faith is a means of salvation, like "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •