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.
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.
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.
"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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.There are no psychological motivations for atheism. Someone either believes in a deity or they don't.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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
Name a valid psychological motivation for atheism then. A need for a psychological motivation for atheism sounds like a theistic confirmation bias.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.