PDA

View Full Version : Myers-Briggs and atheism



granpa
12-13-2014, 07:35 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

MBTI and Atheism | www.godsurvey.org (http://www.godsurvey.org/mbti-atheism.html)

http://www.godsurvey.org/mbti-type-atheism.png

You can see from the above chart that the four TP types (Thinking + Perceiving) appear near the top of both lists and that the four FJ types (Feeling + Judging) appear near the bottom. Therefore, the primary conclusion is that individuals with preferences for TP are more likely to be atheists than those with preferences for FJ.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Thinking-Feeling-Knowing.PNG

Cow Poke
12-13-2014, 08:18 AM
An interesting note is that the reliability of the test is sometimes questioned because some studies have found that between 40% and 75% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting as little as 30 days to a year later. I have take the test at different times in my life, never with the same results.

Maybe some of those TP atheists will become more FJ when they come to know Christ as Savior! :idea:

Eric Schmidt
12-13-2014, 10:40 AM
Where is the second chart at the bottom of your post from? And what is the relevance?

KingsGambit
12-13-2014, 10:52 AM
I've heard it claimed that the Myers-Briggs was completely bunk. I did have to take the full version for seminary this semester, and I was surprised at the insights the full report gave me, especially for how to best communicate with others and be a group leader. So as long as you take it with a grain of salt, I think it's interesting...

By the way, I got ISTJ, but I appear to have resisted the siren call of atheism.

Adrift
12-13-2014, 10:54 AM
An interesting note is that the reliability of the test is sometimes questioned because some studies have found that between 40% and 75% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting as little as 30 days to a year later. I have take the test at different times in my life, never with the same results.

Maybe some of those TP atheists will become more FJ when they come to know Christ as Savior! :idea:

Yeah. This thing was really popular here on Theologyweb awhile back, but I always felt it was a bit silly. People do change. I've changed, and I've seen others change too. One of the things that concerned me about this test was that people were actually defining who they were, and what they were capable of, based on the test. "I can't talk to people because I'm INTJ" or "I can't be alone because I'm ESTP" or whatever. I control my mind, my mind doesn't control me. Romans 12:2 tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. I don't think scripture would tell Christian to do that if it weren't possible.

KingsGambit
12-13-2014, 10:56 AM
Yeah. This thing was really popular here on Theologyweb awhile back, but I always felt it was a bit silly. People do change. I've changed, and I've seen others change too. One of the things that concerned me about this test was that people were actually defining who they were, and what they were capable of, based on the test. "I can't talk to people because I'm INTJ" or "I can't be alone because I'm ESTP" or whatever. I control my mind, my mind doesn't control me. Romans 12:2 tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. I don't think scripture would tell Christian to do that if it weren't possible.

The way that my seminary professor taught us was that it doesn't measure strengths at all, but rather that it measures what we find most energizing... but that we can still operate in out of preference areas.

Kelp(p)
12-13-2014, 11:00 AM
The way that my seminary professor taught us was that it doesn't measure strengths at all, but rather that it measures what we find most energizing... but that we can still operate in out of preference areas.Yeah, I can definitely say that I'm a true introvert. There comes a point where being around people, as much as I love them, just kind of starts to exhaust me and I need to go crash in my room for a while.

Adrift
12-13-2014, 11:11 AM
The way that my seminary professor taught us was that it doesn't measure strengths at all, but rather that it measures what we find most energizing... but that we can still operate in out of preference areas.

Maybe that's the problem for those who self-diagnose over the internet. They don't have the privilege of having a trained psychologist explain to them the limitations of the test, and what exactly it means for them. Most people I've come into contact who swear by it remind me of my friends who are into astrology. They'll tell me that when you really get into it, its undeniable how much seems to line up... :sigh:

By the way, why are they teaching the Myers-Briggs test at a seminary? Is this for a psych class or something?

Christianbookworm
12-13-2014, 11:18 AM
Yeah. The MB is really more for fun. And the OP chart seems to not have any statistical validity. The numbers are so small, it doesn't mean anything.

KingsGambit
12-13-2014, 11:18 AM
Maybe that's the problem for those who self-diagnose over the internet. They don't have the privilege of having a trained psychologist explain to them the limitations of the test, and what exactly it means for them. Most people I've come into contact who swear by it remind me of my friends who are into astrology. They'll tell me that when you really get into it, its undeniable how much seems to line up... :sigh:

By the way, why are they teaching the Myers-Briggs test at a seminary? Is this for a psych class or something?

It's a class on Spiritual Formation. The whole concept of spiritual formation seemed a little nebulous to my concrete mind but I really have found the course to be useful, though I'm not sure the MBTI was the most useful part of the class.

Cerealman
12-13-2014, 11:19 AM
I'm still INTJ and my other half is ENFP. I almost became agnostic, but that ended up not happening.

Adrift
12-13-2014, 11:22 AM
Yeah? Well I'm a son of God, an ambassador, and a joint heir with Christ, with power from on high! :smile:

Pentecost
12-13-2014, 11:36 AM
Obviously change is supposed to happen in teenage years, but I first took the test in 6th grade and was determined to be an INTP, in 9th grade I was given the test in a class and I received INTJ. I became a Christian in 11th grade and was given the test in another class in 12 grade. I was then an ENTJ. Two years later (just now) I received ESFJ. Apparently one of the "classic" religious types (and I was almost scored ENFJ, the other most religious type). Every time I've taken it I've been able to say, "Yeah, that describes me." Just thought I'd share my experience with it.

Adrift
12-13-2014, 11:45 AM
Obviously change is supposed to happen in teenage years, but I first took the test in 6th grade and was determined to be an INTP, in 9th grade I was given the test in a class and I received INTJ. I became a Christian in 11th grade and was given the test in another class in 12 grade. I was then an ENTJ. Two years later (just now) I received ESFJ. Apparently one of the "classic" religious types (and I was almost scored ENFJ, the other most religious type). Every time I've taken it I've been able to say, "Yeah, that describes me." Just thought I'd share my experience with it.

Your name makes me wonder how the disciples would have tested before and after the day of Pentecost.

Cerealman
12-13-2014, 11:46 AM
Obviously change is supposed to happen in teenage years, but I first took the test in 6th grade and was determined to be an INTP, in 9th grade I was given the test in a class and I received INTJ. I became a Christian in 11th grade and was given the test in another class in 12 grade. I was then an ENTJ. Two years later (just now) I received ESFJ. Apparently one of the "classic" religious types (and I was almost scored ENFJ, the other most religious type). Every time I've taken it I've been able to say, "Yeah, that describes me." Just thought I'd share my experience with it.

All of my friends besides me are all extremely extroverted compared to me.
Often they try to force me out of my shell,which I hate very much.

Pentecost
12-13-2014, 11:52 AM
All of my friends besides me are all extremely extroverted compared to me.
Often they try to force me out of my shell,which I hate very much.

That is the absolute worst! One of my very good friends who is generally quiet and shy was basically told (by an idiot) that real Christians are outgoing. The guy didn't mean it that harsh, but it was the implication.

@Adrift, one could certainly speculate, but we don't have much knowledge about most of their personalities anyways. Most who have been Baptized in the Spirit as us Pentecostals call it become more outspoken about their faith from what I've seen and experienced.

Paprika
12-13-2014, 11:54 AM
The study compared those who attended church as children but are now atheists (n = 2,677 females; 7,838 males) with those who still attend as adults (n = 1,137 females; 1,189 males)...The following table shows which types were over-represented and under-represented in the atheist group as compared to the Christian group. The number indicates the degree of over-representation or under-representation. For example, ISTP 3.79 means that there were almost four times as many female ISTPs in the atheist group as compared to the Christian group whereas ENFJ 0.23 means that there were only about a quarter as many female ENFJs.
Either there is a serious typo here or the table is meaningless.

Cow Poke
12-13-2014, 12:51 PM
Yeah. This thing was really popular here on Theologyweb awhile back, but I always felt it was a bit silly. People do change. I've changed, and I've seen others change too. One of the things that concerned me about this test was that people were actually defining who they were, and what they were capable of, based on the test. "I can't talk to people because I'm INTJ" or "I can't be alone because I'm ESTP" or whatever. I control my mind, my mind doesn't control me. Romans 12:2 tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. I don't think scripture would tell Christian to do that if it weren't possible.

EGGzackly.... that was my biggest concern... that it will be a self-fulfilled prophecy, and people will make life decisions based on a test that might be totally different 1 year later.

Cow Poke
12-13-2014, 12:52 PM
Your name makes me wonder how the disciples would have tested before and after the day of Pentecost.

Or Peter before and after the Resurrection.

Or Saul taking the test, then Paul taking the test (but I repeat myself) :smile:

One Bad Pig
12-13-2014, 01:12 PM
Obviously change is supposed to happen in teenage years, but I first took the test in 6th grade and was determined to be an INTP, in 9th grade I was given the test in a class and I received INTJ. I became a Christian in 11th grade and was given the test in another class in 12 grade. I was then an ENTJ. Two years later (just now) I received ESFJ. Apparently one of the "classic" religious types (and I was almost scored ENFJ, the other most religious type). Every time I've taken it I've been able to say, "Yeah, that describes me." Just thought I'd share my experience with it.
On the other hand, I've consistently scored either INTJ or ISTJ. :shrug: And the descriptors for INTJ fairly well describe me, so I'm comfortable with that identification. :shrug:

Cow Poke
12-13-2014, 01:16 PM
On the other hand, I've consistently scored either INTJ or ISTJ. :shrug: And the descriptors for INTJ fairly well describe me, so I'm comfortable with that identification. :shrug:

Yeah, you just read that's who you're supposed to be, so you ARE that! :rant: You have been assimilated!

Teallaura
12-13-2014, 01:53 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

MBTI and Atheism | www.godsurvey.org (http://www.godsurvey.org/mbti-atheism.html)

http://www.godsurvey.org/mbti-type-atheism.png

You can see from the above chart that the four TP types (Thinking + Perceiving) appear near the top of both lists and that the four FJ types (Feeling + Judging) appear near the bottom. Therefore, the primary conclusion is that individuals with preferences for TP are more likely to be atheists than those with preferences for FJ.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Thinking-Feeling-Knowing.PNG

Um, doesn't it also indicate that atheism is more common among the judgmental types?

You could also make the argument that it indicates atheism may be more common in those who are bad at logic - a personality trait (assuming that the thing is accurate) doesn't necessarily imply a skill. 'Tends to think more' doesn't mean - or even imply - 'thinks well' so it's bordering on fallacious to assume there is an actual argument to be made here. :rasberry:

lilpixieofterror
12-13-2014, 02:12 PM
On the other hand, I've consistently scored either INTJ or ISTJ. :shrug: And the descriptors for INTJ fairly well describe me, so I'm comfortable with that identification. :shrug:

Most of my scores tend to be along the INFJ/INTJ line.

lilpixieofterror
12-13-2014, 02:14 PM
Yeah, you just read that's who you're supposed to be, so you ARE that! :rant: You have been assimilated!

Once the pain from the implants subsides, it isn't so bad. You at least can walk in space, without a spacesuit.

Darth Executor
12-13-2014, 03:05 PM
An interesting note is that the reliability of the test is sometimes questioned because some studies have found that between 40% and 75% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting as little as 30 days to a year later. I have take the test at different times in my life, never with the same results.

I've consistently gotten INTP every time I've taken it.

Cow Poke
12-13-2014, 03:10 PM
I've consistently gotten INTP every time I've taken it.

I am shocked. SHOCKED, I say.

Catholicity
12-13-2014, 10:07 PM
I think the Meyers Briggs is interesting. Like all tests it gives you a base line for your "normal persona" (think MMPI MMPI-2 IQ standards, Standardized testing etc.) Its a baseline going on an algorithm. While accurate and interesting, it may just mean "here's your norm, here's what you can do with x) and it seems reasonable to me. I don't think most people actually make an "idol" out of it or let it define them, their religion etc. And remember this is granpa who posted this.....

Darth Executor
12-13-2014, 11:11 PM
Sent granpa friend request since Catholicity vouches for his character and intellect.

KingsGambit
12-14-2014, 12:09 AM
granpa is the guy who thinks the Lake of Fire is the sun.

whag
12-14-2014, 05:00 AM
Yeah. This thing was really popular here on Theologyweb awhile back, but I always felt it was a bit silly. People do change. I've changed, and I've seen others change too. One of the things that concerned me about this test was that people were actually defining who they were, and what they were capable of, based on the test. "I can't talk to people because I'm INTJ" or "I can't be alone because I'm ESTP" or whatever. I control my mind, my mind doesn't control me. Romans 12:2 tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. I don't think scripture would tell Christian to do that if it weren't possible.

The results are too coarse. Progressive believers (i.e., Christian universalists, liberal Muslims) and agnostics aren't "atheist." It's more reasonable to conclude that more cognitive, less emotional personality types--the ones most likely to reject extreme beliefs--won't necessarily go "full atheist" but simply adopt more reasonable belief systems that don't require surrendering of thought.

lilpixieofterror
12-14-2014, 06:17 AM
The results are too coarse. Progressive believers (i.e., Christian universalists, liberal Muslims) and agnostics aren't "atheist." It's more reasonable to conclude that more cognitive, less emotional personality types--the ones most likely to reject extreme beliefs--won't necessarily go "full atheist" but simply adopt more reasonable belief systems that don't require surrendering of thought.

That's right because we all know that being more prone to thinking with your heart means you can't be logical. :ahem: Do you like sounding like such a bigot all the time, whag?

whag
12-14-2014, 06:48 AM
That's right because we all know that being more prone to thinking with your heart means you can't be logical. :ahem: Do you like sounding like such a bigot all the time, whag?

How is the acknowledgement that some religion requires surrender of thought bigotry?

I think I'm actually on your side here. I said the test is too course grained to be accurate because there are degrees of cognitive processing (different shades of belief). I also should've have said that introversion/extroversion isn't correlative enough to belief/disbelief to be a useful indicator of theism/atheism.

lilpixieofterror
12-14-2014, 07:32 AM
How is the acknowledgement that some religion requires surrender of thought bigotry?

Because every personality type has its own strengths and weaknesses. They can also all be prone to 'surrender of thought'. I wasn't aware that being an FJ (for example) made you anymore prone to 'surrender of thought' than being any other type. If you think that; you have thoroughly misunderstood the entire point of these personality profile's to begin with.


I think I'm actually on your side here. I said the test is too course grained to be accurate because there are degrees of cognitive processing (different shades of belief). I also should've have said that introversion/extroversion isn't correlative enough to belief/disbelief to be a useful indicator of theism/atheism.

Introversion/extroversion seem to have little to do with being a Christian or not. I could say that might effect your choice of denomination or church, but not much beyond that. While it is cute to watch you pretend to be on 'my side', you're the one that made the bigoted statement). Now back it up (BTW I tend to test into one of those 'emotional types' and well... I'm not that prone to 'surrendering of thought'. Now where is your evidence for your assertion?

Darth Executor
12-14-2014, 08:51 AM
The results are too coarse. Progressive believers (i.e., Christian universalists, liberal Muslims) and agnostics aren't "atheist." It's more reasonable to conclude that more cognitive, less emotional personality types--the ones most likely to reject extreme beliefs--

In what universe are more cognitive, less emotional personality types most likely to reject extreme beliefs? Do you actually know any extremists?


won't necessarily go "full atheist" but simply adopt more reasonable belief systems that don't require surrendering of thought.

Yeah, I highly doubt people who reject religious dogma because it makes them feel bad (IE: homophiles) are sterling examples of not surrendering your thoughts to emotion.

Darth Executor
12-14-2014, 08:53 AM
granpa is the guy who thinks the Lake of Fire is the sun.

And Catholicity mocks the mentally ill, I think granpa wins this one.

firstfloor
12-16-2014, 12:24 AM
The following is quoted from - American on-line atheists and psychological type
by Matthew J. Baker & Mandy Robbins (download available at link below)

“The data demonstrated that the atheist population differs significantly from the general population when it comes to psychological type with noticeable over-representations of INTJ, ISTJ, and INTP among both male and female atheists. This suggests that these psychological types might be more likely to embrace atheism than others. The type most over-represented among both male and female atheists, INTJ, is described by Myers (1998) as follows:

Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Sceptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and others. (p. 13)”

“ISTJ, although less over-represented than INTJ due to their high frequency in the general population as well as the atheist population, was nonetheless the predominant type among both male and female atheists, comprising over 40% of the sample. ISTJ is described by Myers (1998) as follows:

Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic, dependable. See to it that everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their minds as to what should be accomplished and work toward is steadily, regardless of protests or distractions. (p. 13)”

“…… it is unclear as to whether the sample truly represents American atheists in general. However, despite these weaknesses, the present study has demonstrated that the relationship between psychological type and atheism is an area worth researching further and has laid a strong foundation for future research to build upon.”

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13674676.2012.707433#.VI_psXuy4UA

Teallaura
12-16-2014, 08:58 AM
Is it just me or do those read like astrology signs? "Taurus: loyal, bull headed and kind to small animals"


:teeth:

KingsGambit
12-16-2014, 09:15 AM
My personal theory: Certain personality types are less inclined to be wishy washy and want to take firm stances. People who identify as "atheist" are more likely to take a firm stance on something. These personality types might also be more inclined to be very stridently religious.

firstfloor
12-16-2014, 09:47 AM
Is it just me or do those read like astrology signs? "Taurus: loyal, bull headed and kind to small animals":teeth:It’s just you.:wink:

Adrift
12-16-2014, 09:50 AM
It’s just you.:wink:

...he says after I've amen'd her post.

Cow Poke
12-16-2014, 09:50 AM
...he says after I've amen'd her post.

.... which caused me to amen yours....

KingsGambit
12-16-2014, 09:51 AM
Is it just me or do those read like astrology signs? "Taurus: loyal, bull headed and kind to small animals"


:teeth:

I don't think so. Those are complete nonsense. I think these at least have some basis in fact (though I know many researchers would disagree.)

Teallaura
12-16-2014, 09:53 AM
I don't think so. Those are complete nonsense. I think these at least have some basis in fact (though I know many researchers would disagree.)
I was only semi-serious but they do have one trait in common - they are very general descriptors. :shrug:

Jedidiah
12-16-2014, 01:31 PM
Is it just me or do those read like astrology signs? "Taurus: loyal, bull headed and kind to small animals"


:teeth:

A great deal of psychology is a lot like astrology - not all but a lot.

Jedidiah
12-16-2014, 01:32 PM
...he says after I've amen'd her post.

Thanks. I forgot to Amen the post even though I responded to it.

lilpixieofterror
12-16-2014, 05:23 PM
The following is quoted from - American on-line atheists and psychological type
by Matthew J. Baker & Mandy Robbins (download available at link below)

“The data demonstrated that the atheist population differs significantly from the general population when it comes to psychological type with noticeable over-representations of INTJ, ISTJ, and INTP among both male and female atheists. This suggests that these psychological types might be more likely to embrace atheism than others. The type most over-represented among both male and female atheists, INTJ, is described by Myers (1998) as follows:

Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Sceptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and others. (p. 13)”

“ISTJ, although less over-represented than INTJ due to their high frequency in the general population as well as the atheist population, was nonetheless the predominant type among both male and female atheists, comprising over 40% of the sample. ISTJ is described by Myers (1998) as follows:

Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic, dependable. See to it that everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their minds as to what should be accomplished and work toward is steadily, regardless of protests or distractions. (p. 13)”

“…… it is unclear as to whether the sample truly represents American atheists in general. However, despite these weaknesses, the present study has demonstrated that the relationship between psychological type and atheism is an area worth researching further and has laid a strong foundation for future research to build upon.”

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13674676.2012.707433#.VI_psXuy4UA

You'll also notice those types tend to be the least sociable of them all. Just saying... :whistle:

lilpixieofterror
12-16-2014, 05:24 PM
Is it just me or do those read like astrology signs? "Taurus: loyal, bull headed and kind to small animals"


:teeth:

Modern psychology, in a nut shell. :lol:

Christianbookworm
12-16-2014, 05:38 PM
A great deal of psychology is a lot like astrology - not all but a lot.

Like shoehorning people into 16 or 12 personality types?

Cow Poke
12-16-2014, 05:41 PM
Modern psychology, in a nut shell. :lol:

Heavy on the "nut".

firstfloor
12-17-2014, 03:14 AM
You'll also notice those types tend to be the least sociable of them all. Just saying... :whistle:I think you are referring to the extraversion–introversion dimension. Introverts are probably also less susceptible to peer pressures towards conformity and so do not absorb religious indoctrination so readily and would tend to be excluded by groups that require conformity of their members. I am definitely of that type. It has been said that atheists are like cats because they all go their own way. The religious, comparatively, are members of a “flock”. Atheists are not herdable in the same way which may account in part for their relatively low profile in the general population.

One Bad Pig
12-17-2014, 07:06 AM
I think you are referring to the extraversion–introversion dimension. Introverts are probably also less susceptible to peer pressures towards conformity and so do not absorb religious indoctrination so readily and would tend to be excluded by groups that require conformity of their members. I am definitely of that type. It has been said that atheists are like cats because they all go their own way. The religious, comparatively, are members of a “flock”. Atheists are not herdable in the same way which may account in part for their relatively low profile in the general population.
You've obviously never talked to a pastor about how herdable their "flock" is. :lol:

Cow Poke
12-17-2014, 07:52 AM
You've obviously never talked to a pastor about how herdable their "flock" is. :lol:

Herding cats can be easier. :yes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

Darth Executor
12-17-2014, 10:38 AM
I think you are referring to the extraversion–introversion dimension. Introverts are probably also less susceptible to peer pressures towards conformity and so do not absorb religious indoctrination so readily and would tend to be excluded by groups that require conformity of their members. I am definitely of that type. It has been said that atheists are like cats because they all go their own way. The religious, comparatively, are members of a “flock”. Atheists are not herdable in the same way which may account in part for their relatively low profile in the general population.

"My being a shut-in basement dweeb is actually a huge advantage."

Nice spin.

firstfloor
12-17-2014, 01:18 PM
"My being a shut-in basement dweeb is actually a huge advantage."
Nice spin.That’s quite funny. Who wrote it for you?

pancreasman
12-17-2014, 03:12 PM
That’s quite funny. Who wrote it for you?

His mother.

lilpixieofterror
12-17-2014, 07:32 PM
I think you are referring to the extraversion–introversion dimension. Introverts are probably also less susceptible to peer pressures towards conformity and so do not absorb religious indoctrination so readily and would tend to be excluded by groups that require conformity of their members. I am definitely of that type. It has been said that atheists are like cats because they all go their own way. The religious, comparatively, are members of a “flock”. Atheists are not herdable in the same way which may account in part for their relatively low profile in the general population.

You apparently know about as much about personality theory, as you do about theology. First off, the I/E divided has nothing to do with 'getting along' with others and simply has to do with where your energy comes from. Introverts are ones that get their energy from within and can be sociable too. I find myself relating to the INFJ thing on the MBTI profiles, which tend to be a sociable type, but an introvert too. Sociability has nothing to do with the I/E divide. Second, you also know nothing about church life either. Some of those church goers can be some of the most stubborn people I've ever known. I know fundy atheist like to believe they are somehow unique and Christians are just a bunch of mindless sheep, but that isn't true at all. Shoot, you'll find most Christian members of tWeb tend to lean on the introvert side and likely are going to be INXX types of some sort due to the nature of this web site. Christians tend to represent a pretty wide swatch of personalities. That much I have noticed. You might want to think before your next answer... :ahem:

lilpixieofterror
12-17-2014, 07:36 PM
You've obviously never talked to a pastor about how herdable their "flock" is. :lol:

What do you expert from a fundy atheist, who has never stepped into a church and just listens to whatever he likes to hear? Logic? Reasoning? Real life experiences? :lol:

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 06:13 AM
You apparently know about as much about personality theory, as you do about theology.Correct. You lost me at XX.


I know fundy atheist“Fundy atheist” is a JP Holding fantasy term that he uses because he wrongly thinks that there is something opposite fundamental Christianity. There isn’t. Fundamentalism is a religious phenomenon that means that some people believe that they have discovered the “Truth”. There is no equivalent “Truth” for an atheist.


like to believe they are somehow unique and Christians are just a bunch of mindless sheep, but that isn't true at all. Shoot, you'll find most Christian members of tWeb tend to lean on the introvert side and likely are going to be INXX types of some sort due to the nature of this web site. Christians tend to represent a pretty wide swatch of personalities. That much I have noticed. You might want to think before your next answer... :ahem:“Christian” is a label that gives the wearer certain privileges. It, more so than many others, offers privileges in return for conformity or obedience. The staff here for example, have to agree to a set of prescribed beliefs. But I am all for Christians being as independently minded as possible.

Cow Poke
12-18-2014, 06:14 AM
There is no equivalent “Truth” for an atheist.

:smile:

Adrift
12-18-2014, 06:32 AM
“Christian” is a label that gives the wearer certain privileges. It, more so than many others, offers privileges in return for conformity or obedience. The staff here for example, have to agree to a set of prescribed beliefs. But I am all for Christians being as independently minded as possible.

:huh: Its no more a "privilege" for Christians to staff a Christian website, than it is for atheists to staff an atheist website.

One Bad Pig
12-18-2014, 06:37 AM
:huh: Its no more a "privilege" for Christians to staff a Christian website, than it is for atheists to staff an atheist website.
It's so much more fun to make up your own definitions for words. Loose yourself from the tyranny of the dictionary!

Cerebrum123
12-18-2014, 07:14 AM
Correct. You lost me at XX.

“Fundy atheist” is a JP Holding fantasy term that he uses because he wrongly thinks that there is something opposite fundamental Christianity. There isn’t. Fundamentalism is a religious phenomenon that means that some people believe that they have discovered the “Truth”. There is no equivalent “Truth” for an atheist.

“Christian” is a label that gives the wearer certain privileges. It, more so than many others, offers privileges in return for conformity or obedience. The staff here for example, have to agree to a set of prescribed beliefs. But I am all for Christians being as independently minded as possible.

:rofl:
I can't link to it because of profanity, but look up "Mustachioed Apologetics" by Armoured Skeptic. Or do you think he's just using a "fantasy term" too? Oh, and then there is this, an explanation on the history of the term "fundamentalist atheist".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0WGr2MJSqU

Yeah, it's by JPH, but look at the sources who used it before he did. It's obviously not something he made up, and he never claims it's the "opposite of fundamental Christianity". If anything he thinks it's the atheist equivalent of "fundamentalist"* Christianity.

*Not the original meaning of the word, but the current trend of using it as an insult.

Cerebrum123
12-18-2014, 07:15 AM
It's so much more fun to make up your own definitions for words. Loose yourself from the tyranny of the dictionary!

Don't forget historical usages, that way you can say someone is using "fantasy terms" when they pull out a term that's been in use for a long time.

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 07:20 AM
:huh: Its no more a "privilege" for Christians to staff a Christian website, than it is for atheists to staff an atheist website.Okay, that was a bad example.

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 07:26 AM
Yeah, it's by JPH,................This is a classic straw man argument.

Cerebrum123
12-18-2014, 07:42 AM
This is a classic straw man argument.

No, it's a record of the usage of the term. However, what you just did was a classic genetic fallacy. :thumbd:

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 07:53 AM
:smile:The revolution in thinking in the modern era has been that these darned priests don’t have a clue what they are talking about; as we can see because now we have the Bible in a language that we can read. We want to turn base metal into gold and we have seen an endless progression of new questions ever since. The questions are always more fascinating than the answers; like the point of the famous answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything being 42.

The deadly trap that all religions fall prey to is certainty. But the real killer is that you have to be certain too.

Catholicity
12-18-2014, 08:24 AM
Actually the first time I heard the term of religion, fundamentalism, and Atheism came in the context of my Dad and I walking outside of a bookstore. We were discussing the types of books and he mentioned one that disturbed him. I asked what it was. He explained that it was the newest branch of Atheism that had nearly a religious, evangelical or fundamental tone. Holding may say "fundy" but he's not the first to invent the concept. Its been around for some time.

Christianbookworm
12-18-2014, 08:27 AM
:offtopic:

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 08:32 AM
No, it's a record of the usage of the term. However, what you just did was a classic genetic fallacy. :thumbd:The point is that atheists do not have creeds. They are often wrongly accused of having beliefs similar to religious beliefs (I have heard that said recently about evolution) but I think that is because there is confusion about what knowledge and beliefs are and what skepticism does to promote order among competing ideas.

Cerebrum123
12-18-2014, 08:52 AM
The point is that atheists do not have creeds. They are often wrongly accused of having beliefs similar to religious beliefs (I have heard that said recently about evolution) but I think that is because there is confusion about what knowledge and beliefs are and what skepticism does to promote order among competing ideas.

Absolutely none of this has anything to do with what was said in Holding's video, nor anything I said. You really should at least watch that video by Armoured Skeptic, maybe you will at least not dismiss him since he's an atheist.

Christianbookworm
12-18-2014, 08:54 AM
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with what was said in Holding's video, nor anything I said. You really should at least watch that video by Armoured Skeptic, maybe you will at least not dismiss him since he's an atheist.

He's not the same type of atheist as FF? Fundy atheist troll

Cerebrum123
12-18-2014, 08:58 AM
He's not the same type of atheist as FF? Fundy atheist troll

You mean "slimy and dishonest"?

One Bad Pig
12-18-2014, 09:07 AM
:offtopic:
As thread starter, ff doesn't need to stay "on topic." :shrug:

Christianbookworm
12-18-2014, 09:14 AM
As thread starter, ff doesn't need to stay "on topic." :shrug:

but granpa started it... :huh:

One Bad Pig
12-18-2014, 09:49 AM
but granpa started it... :huh:

nevermind.

:outtie:

Christianbookworm
12-18-2014, 09:56 AM
nevermind.

:outtie:
:glare: Did you make a mistake?

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 09:56 AM
The revolution in thinking in the modern era has been that these darned priests don’t have a clue what they are talking about; as we can see because now we have the Bible in a language that we can read. We want to turn base metal into gold and we have seen an endless progression of new questions ever since. The questions are always more fascinating than the answers; like the point of the famous answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything being 42.

The deadly trap that all religions fall prey to is certainty. But the real killer is that you have to be certain too.Atheism also relies on certainty - only agnosticism asserts uncertainty.

KingsGambit
12-18-2014, 09:58 AM
Atheism also relies on certainty - only agnosticism asserts uncertainty.

That kind of plays into my theory earlier about why a correlation might exist.

Christianbookworm
12-18-2014, 10:03 AM
Atheism also relies on certainty - only agnosticism asserts uncertainty.

They may be certain about being uncertain! :teeth:

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 10:24 AM
That kind of plays into my theory earlier about why a correlation might exist.:huh: Because they can't tell atheism from agnosticism?


I missed something, didn't I?

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 10:26 AM
They may be certain about being uncertain! :teeth:They're certainly uncertain about something! :teeth:

KingsGambit
12-18-2014, 10:35 AM
:huh: Because they can't tell atheism from agnosticism?


I missed something, didn't I?

This is what I meant:


My personal theory: Certain personality types are less inclined to be wishy washy and want to take firm stances. People who identify as "atheist" are more likely to take a firm stance on something. These personality types might also be more inclined to be very stridently religious.

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 10:42 AM
Atheism also relies on certainty - only agnosticism asserts uncertainty.I disagree. Matt Dillahunty explains it very well in my opinion. He compares it to the verdict of a court jury. The atheist is someone who finds that God is ‘not guilty’ of existing in the same sense that a jury would find a defendant not guilty of some offence if they were unconvinced by the evidence presented in court. So it is really disbelief rather than belief that God does not exist because there is always the difficult problem of defining what we mean by God. (e.g. from where I sit it looks like the number of one true gods > 1)

If you are not sure that God exists you are atheist.

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 10:43 AM
This is what I meant:
Ah, gotcha.

One Bad Pig
12-18-2014, 10:46 AM
I disagree. Matt Dillahunty explains it very well in my opinion. He compares it to the verdict of a court jury. The atheist is someone who finds that God is ‘not guilty’ of existing in the same sense that a jury would find a defendant not guilty of some offence if they were unconvinced by the evidence presented in court. So it is really disbelief rather than belief that God does not exist because there is always the difficult problem of defining what we mean by God. (e.g. from where I sit it looks like the number of one true gods > 1)

If you are not sure that God exists you are atheist.
There you go making up definitions again. :thumb:

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 10:49 AM
I disagree. Matt Dillahunty explains it very well in my opinion. He compares it to the verdict of a court jury. The atheist is someone who finds that God is ‘not guilty’ of existing in the same sense that a jury would find a defendant not guilty of some offence if they were unconvinced by the evidence presented in court. So it is really disbelief rather than belief that God does not exist because there is always the difficult problem of defining what we mean by God. (e.g. from where I sit it looks like the number of one true gods > 1)

If you are not sure that God exists you are atheist.Nope, you are an agnostic - and it's a good description of agnosticism, but a crappy one of atheism. Even 'soft' atheism assumes there is no God - not that there might not be.

Confusing the two is an insult to atheists. Kinda hard to insult agnostics as they aren't sure if it's an insult or not (being facetious... somewhat).

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 11:16 AM
There you go making up definitions again. :thumb:It does not matter too much so long as you know what I mean. It is a commonly used dictionary definition:
“a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

One Bad Pig
12-18-2014, 11:20 AM
It does not matter too much so long as you know what I mean. It is a commonly used dictionary definition:
“a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
...which is not the definition you gave. :duh:

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 11:25 AM
Nope, you are an agnostic - and it's a good description of agnosticism, but a crappy one of atheism. Even 'soft' atheism assumes there is no God - not that there might not be.
Confusing the two is an insult to atheists. Kinda hard to insult agnostics as they aren't sure if it's an insult or not (being facetious... somewhat)."Many people confuse or equate the terms, but there is a definite difference between the two.
An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means "not, or no God." In the atheist camp you can have a wide variety of reasons for their denial as well as differing levels of certainty. Some will deny emphatically that there is a God and claim to have "proof" of God's non-existence. Other's will simply say they do not believe there is a God though they could not prove God does not exist. The common denominator is that they do not believe in God.
Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, "not, or no knowledge." An agnostic is someone who believes human beings simply cannot know anything metaphysical or beyond the physical realm; therefore, they cannot know whether things like spirit, angels or God exist at all.
Contrary to popular belief all agnostics are not atheists. There are theistic agnostics--fideists, for example--who believe in God but do not believe that their understanding of God is knowable by natural means."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-a-difference-between-atheists-and-agnostics

firstfloor
12-18-2014, 11:26 AM
...which is not the definition you gave. :duh:
Yes it is .... disbelieves.

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 11:31 AM
"Many people confuse or equate the terms, but there is a definite difference between the two.
An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means "not, or no God." In the atheist camp you can have a wide variety of reasons for their denial as well as differing levels of certainty. Some will deny emphatically that there is a God and claim to have "proof" of God's non-existence. Other's will simply say they do not believe there is a God though they could not prove God does not exist. The common denominator is that they do not believe in God.
Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, "not, or no knowledge." An agnostic is someone who believes human beings simply cannot know anything metaphysical or beyond the physical realm; therefore, they cannot know whether things like spirit, angels or God exist at all.
Contrary to popular belief all agnostics are not atheists. There are theistic agnostics--fideists, for example--who believe in God but do not believe that their understanding of God is knowable by natural means."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-a-difference-between-atheists-and-agnostics

Translation: I was wrong but I don't want to admit it. So I'll pretend I wasn't defining atheism with the definition of agnosticism. Maybe no one will notice... :noid:

Teallaura
12-18-2014, 11:32 AM
Yes it is .... disbelieves.No, uncertain. The two things are not the same, Oscar...

Adrift
12-18-2014, 11:32 AM
Nope, you are an agnostic - and it's a good description of agnosticism, but a crappy one of atheism.

Yep. I mentioned this before, but the whole reason Huxley coined the term "Agnostic" was because there were no terms to describe what firstfloor (or this Matt Dillahunty guy) is talking about.



When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction the term took.



Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.


Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.


I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

Atheists are in the extreme minority world round and throughout all of history. To pretend that they're simply taking a default position on the topic of God or the divine or what have you is ridiculous. They can pretend all they want, but they don't lack belief, and they don't disbelieve. They have a belief, and that belief is that god/s do not exist.

William Craig correctly points out,

If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

Even some agnostics see how silly this shift in terminology is,

Given what Huxley did by coining “agnosticism,” no useful purpose is served by fostering the notion that “atheism” = “agnosticism” or that all agnostics are also atheists. If you are what Huxley describes as an “agnostic,” then you are, in fact “an agnostic” and not “an atheist” by the traditional dictionary definitions of that word. If on the other hand you are what those dictionaries describe as “atheist,” then you are “an atheist” and not “an agnostic.” Huxley defined “agnosticism” in such a way as to exclude atheists: Those who “know” either that a deity does not exist, have — as Huxley put it — “attained a certain ‘gnosis’” and therefore are rather specifically not what he envisions as “agnostic.”

It really is that simple, and there is no need to go any further. Redefining “atheism” by widening its scope, and quibbling over the difference between knowledge and belief, only confuses the meanings of words as they’re widely understood, and provides ammunition for theists, who really need not be given any more than they currently do.

That said, I quite understand the effort here. Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose. Redefining “atheist” and “atheism,” on the other hand, won’t help, especially when dictionaries don’t uniformly support it.

But as I mentioned elsewhere, words are defined by how they're used. If atheists want to redefine what they mean by "atheist", they're first going to have to convince the majority of the rest of the English population. If that's ever accomplished then it seems sensible to me that we drop the word "Agnostic" from our vocabulary, and replace what used to be "atheism" with some new word that describes those people who acknowledge that they hold a belief that there is no god/s.

AlphaBravo
12-18-2014, 12:56 PM
They offered this test at the last office I worked at. I was curious and asked the proctor person if the test had any gender bias. I was told that there was no gender bias because when the test was originally designed, all questions or wordings which showed a gender bias were eliminated. In other words, the MB was designed and calibrated and market tested by adjusting the questions and wordings until each question showed a 50/50 gender split.

My guess is that the test can show bias toward any group that was not specifically calibrated out of the question pool, in this case atheist/theist.

Jedidiah
12-18-2014, 02:14 PM
:offtopic:

ff is usually off topic. All he knows about is how bad religion is and Christianity in particular. All of us Christians are stupid. Isn't there a saying about a "one note . . .?" That is pretty much ff.

lilpixieofterror
12-18-2014, 07:33 PM
Correct. You lost me at XX.

Than you likely shouldn't be talking about topics you don't understand or know well. It is pretty common knowledge that INTJ,INTP, and ISTJ's are not the most sociable types (as I recall, ISTJ's are also some of the most common too). It has nothing to do with the introvert side as it has to do with their tendency to put logic before feeling (which nothing is wrong about that, in of itself). Have you spent any time reading over the different personality profiles and how they work? I have and that is why I talk about this. Try that instead of just blurting out whatever enters your head first.


“Fundy atheist” is a JP Holding fantasy term that he uses because he wrongly thinks that there is something opposite fundamental Christianity. There isn’t. Fundamentalism is a religious phenomenon that means that some people believe that they have discovered the “Truth”. There is no equivalent “Truth” for an atheist.

Than you might want to contact atheist that have used the term since the term predates the internet by about a decade. It sums up your posting style quite well.


“Christian” is a label that gives the wearer certain privileges. It, more so than many others, offers privileges in return for conformity or obedience. The staff here for example, have to agree to a set of prescribed beliefs. But I am all for Christians being as independently minded as possible.

More of you making up things as you go along? Do tell what 'privileges' being a 'Christian' entails because I sure haven't seen these 'privileges' yet. Also, my husband and the tWeb staff would be the first people to tell you that conformity or obedience isn't my strong suit and the last thing that is ever on my mind. I pretty much blew off a 'suggestion' that was made to be by an officer because I believed his suggestion was wrong and still believe it is wrong and would have done the same thing if I had to do it all over again. INFJ's are not really all that well known for being obedient or to conform to things we believe are wrong. The stubbornness of an INFJ with a cause can be legendary.

lilpixieofterror
12-18-2014, 07:40 PM
The revolution in thinking in the modern era has been that these darned priests don’t have a clue what they are talking about; as we can see because now we have the Bible in a language that we can read.

Bald assertions are not examples there FF. Do you have any actual argument here?


We want to turn base metal into gold and we have seen an endless progression of new questions ever since.

If you're talking about alchemy, that was trying to turn lead into gold and it was the science of the middle ages. However; do you have a point here or are you ranting just to rant?



The questions are always more fascinating than the answers; like the point of the famous answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything being 42.

And if you actually read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you'd know that they were trying to figure out what the question was that gave the answer '42'. :whistle:


The deadly trap that all religions fall prey to is certainty. But the real killer is that you have to be certain too.

We don't need to stinking logic. :lolo:

firstfloor
12-19-2014, 01:11 AM
.... talking about topics you don't understand or know well ....... blurting out whatever enters your head first. .... More of you making up things as you go along?Of course. I never know what the next thought is in detail. I have a plan of sorts about where I want to go with an argument but quite often I arrive at an unexpected place. Is this not what everybody does? I don’t think you can really know what you think in advance of thinking it. A lot of so called argument is simply lazy repetition of old opinions – it is what the politicians do day after day. You might as well have a tape recorder in your head. I would prefer to stay fresh, read the news (always superficial) do a little research and have a new idea every new day. I am not averse to contradicting myself.

By the way. these 16 personality types are quite coarse approximations. I was wondering where the psychopaths fit. I suppose they are ENTJ – The Executive type.

firstfloor
12-19-2014, 02:43 AM
ff is usually off topic. All he knows about is how bad religion is and Christianity in particular. All of us Christians are stupid. Isn't there a saying about a "one note . . .?" That is pretty much ff.Not stupid. Wrong about a few things, perhaps, but that’s just my opinion.

If I don’t like your ideas it does not mean that I don’t like you as such. Commonly ‘truth’ has an expiry date attached to it and everyone is working away at finding what ‘truths’ have expired today. There are some religious ideas that are hard to shift and the religions need outside help – like me.

Recent example of how external pressure for change works on sluggish religious institutions – C of E just appointed first woman Bishop.

Jedidiah
12-19-2014, 01:43 PM
I would prefer to stay fresh, read the news (always superficial) do a little research and have a new idea every new day.

In other words glance at available information, ignore it, and make up your own new "truth."

Jedidiah
12-19-2014, 01:45 PM
If I don’t like your ideas it does not mean that I don’t like you as such. Commonly ‘truth’ has an expiry date attached to it and everyone is working away at finding what ‘truths’ have expired today. There are some religious ideas that are hard to shift and the religions need outside help – like me.
In spite of what I post about you (your on line persona) I do not dislike you at all. I do not know you at all. I only know the quality of your posts and arguments.

pancreasman
12-19-2014, 02:42 PM
Not stupid. Wrong about a few things, perhaps, but that’s just my opinion.

If I don’t like your ideas it does not mean that I don’t like you as such. Commonly ‘truth’ has an expiry date attached to it and everyone is working away at finding what ‘truths’ have expired today. There are some religious ideas that are hard to shift and the religions need outside help – like me.

Recent example of how external pressure for change works on sluggish religious institutions – C of E just appointed first woman Bishop.

If you re-read this post with objectivity, you will see you are guilty of exactly the same 'sins' with which you accuse Christians. You seem to hold a superior view of your own opinions which marks itself as the same kind of arrogant certainty you attack. I'm not a Christian, but a few of your posts bother me, bro.

firstfloor
12-19-2014, 03:52 PM
If you re-read this post with objectivity, you will see you are guilty of exactly the same 'sins' with which you accuse Christians. You seem to hold a superior view of your own opinions which marks itself as the same kind of arrogant certainty you attack. I'm not a Christian, but a few of your posts bother me, bro.I see the problem. Thanks.

lilpixieofterror
12-19-2014, 05:29 PM
Of course. I never know what the next thought is in detail. I have a plan of sorts about where I want to go with an argument but quite often I arrive at an unexpected place. Is this not what everybody does? I don’t think you can really know what you think in advance of thinking it. A lot of so called argument is simply lazy repetition of old opinions – it is what the politicians do day after day. You might as well have a tape recorder in your head. I would prefer to stay fresh, read the news (always superficial) do a little research and have a new idea every new day. I am not averse to contradicting myself.

In other words, you're here just to troll and not interested in any sort of understanding of what you pontificate on.


By the way. these 16 personality types are quite coarse approximations. I was wondering where the psychopaths fit. I suppose they are ENTJ – The Executive type.

Considering that personality theories are supposed to study 'healthy' individuals; psychopaths would be very unhealthy versions of what 'personality profile' they would normally have.

firstfloor
12-20-2014, 09:29 AM
In other words glance at available information, ignore it, and make up your own new "truth."I think that is what everybody does. I mean that truth is perishable. I am not sure if that is a general principal or not. A typical case would be the answer to the question; what time is it? The answer may be true for only about a minute.

When we consider the truth of past events we find that we are always relying on the accuracy and reliability of storage and transmission systems and there is always loss in those systems. A photograph, for example, reduces a moment in three dimensions to a two dimensional record that of itself is almost useless without the information carried along another path by a witness. Our memories and the education of the young is our battle against time that is continually removing information.

I conclude that what you and I consider to be true is something that is constantly changing as it moves through time and new information is added, stories are retold and so on. I doubt if there is anything that is absolutely true and the fact that very many things are true for everybody and at all times is a result of the regularity we see in nature.

Cow Poke
12-20-2014, 09:31 AM
I think that is what everybody does. I mean that truth is perishable.

I should know better than to ask :blush: but do you not think ANY truth is eternal, or even "permanent"?

Christianbookworm
12-20-2014, 09:38 AM
Is what FF saied a imperishable truth? Nope! So we can just ignore :troll:.

firstfloor
12-20-2014, 10:14 AM
I should know better than to ask :blush: but do you not think ANY truth is eternal, or even "permanent"?I would settle for durable like wellington boots. Here’s a daft story to think (or not think) about. Is it always true that two plus two equals four? (This easy problem stands in for any arbitrarily difficult mathematical problem.)

The computer on which I propose to calculate the answer consists of a fenced off area in a field to which I will add tokens. To read the answer, I need to open a gate and count the tokens that come out of the pen. So now, I put in two goats and two lions, wait for half an hour and check the result.

I happen to know what the true result ought to be. But suppose I do not. It seems to me that we are dependant on the machinery we build and the regularity of nature to know what is true. Truth is what you calculate it to be and it has no independent existence. (There is a good deal of speculation in all this).

firstfloor
12-20-2014, 10:16 AM
Considering that personality theories are supposed to study 'healthy' individuals; psychopaths would be very unhealthy versions of what 'personality profile' they would normally have.Something like this was on television the other week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROu77TvZzA

Cow Poke
12-20-2014, 10:17 AM
I would settle for durable like wellington boots. Here’s a daft story to think (or not think) about. Is it always true that two plus two equals four? (This easy problem stands in for any arbitrarily difficult mathematical problem.)

The computer on which I propose to calculate the answer consists of a fenced off area in a field to which I will add tokens. To read the answer, I need to open a gate and count the tokens that come out of the pen. So now, I put in two goats and two lions, wait for half an hour and check the result.

I happen to know what the true result ought to be. But suppose I do not. It seems to me that we are dependant on the machinery we build and the regularity of nature to know what is true. Truth is what you calculate it to be and it has no independent existence. (There is a good deal of speculation in all this).

You could have just said no.

Teallaura
12-20-2014, 10:54 AM
I would settle for durable like wellington boots. Here’s a daft story to think (or not think) about. Is it always true that two plus two equals four? (This easy problem stands in for any arbitrarily difficult mathematical problem.)

The computer on which I propose to calculate the answer consists of a fenced off area in a field to which I will add tokens. To read the answer, I need to open a gate and count the tokens that come out of the pen. So now, I put in two goats and two lions, wait for half an hour and check the result.

I happen to know what the true result ought to be. But suppose I do not. It seems to me that we are dependant on the machinery we build and the regularity of nature to know what is true. Truth is what you calculate it to be and it has no independent existence. (There is a good deal of speculation in all this).The problem is your equation is faulty. It should be (2+2) - 2 = 2 - which is the likely outcome of two lions playing with two goats. It would not be 2+2 unless they were muzzled and declawed since 2+2 does not reflect the reality.

Using the wrong equation doesn't tell us anything of the truth of the correct equation.

Jedidiah
12-20-2014, 02:24 PM
I would settle for durable like wellington boots. Here’s a daft story to think (or not think) about. Is it always true that two plus two equals four? (This easy problem stands in for any arbitrarily difficult mathematical problem.)

The computer on which I propose to calculate the answer consists of a fenced off area in a field to which I will add tokens. To read the answer, I need to open a gate and count the tokens that come out of the pen. So now, I put in two goats and two lions, wait for half an hour and check the result.

I happen to know what the true result ought to be. But suppose I do not. It seems to me that we are dependant on the machinery we build and the regularity of nature to know what is true. Truth is what you calculate it to be and it has no independent existence. (There is a good deal of speculation in all this).This post and this whole concept of yours belongs in the Sick Freak (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?57-The-Lazarus-Thread-Part-II-quot-You-Sick-Freaks-quot&p=519&viewfull=1#post519) thread.

Some of us here do know of some eternal truths, sad that you do not.l

firstfloor
12-21-2014, 05:13 AM
The problem is your equation is faulty. It should be (2+2) - 2 = 2 - which is the likely outcome of two lions playing with two goats. It would not be 2+2 unless they were muzzled and declawed since 2+2 does not reflect the reality.
Using the wrong equation doesn't tell us anything of the truth of the correct equation.What I am suggesting is that truth is related to and relies on consistency and repeatability across time. Nothing very interesting would emerge from a system that decays like the goats and the lions. Your calculator would not be able to produce the same answer to the same problem every time.

Religions play with two ideas, roughly being perfection, good, eternal and so on in opposition to corruption, decay, sin, death and the like. What I am suggesting is that arithmetic, life and everything could not exist in a system that is fundamentally corrupted. That is telling us that there are mistakes in those two religious categories.

firstfloor
12-21-2014, 06:05 AM
Some of us here do know of some eternal truths, sad that you do not.l“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”
This is poetry, surely?

lilpixieofterror
12-21-2014, 06:42 AM
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”
This is poetry, surely?

And in the cosmology of the ancient world; the heavens and earth were seen as eternal. So in saying that the word of God will outlast what is considered to be eternal, it is saying God, not the heavens and earth, are eternal. I am truly amazed at the basic ignorance you keep displaying on even the most basic of stuff...

lilpixieofterror
12-21-2014, 06:43 AM
What I am suggesting is that truth is related to and relies on consistency and repeatability across time. Nothing very interesting would emerge from a system that decays like the goats and the lions. Your calculator would not be able to produce the same answer to the same problem every time.

Religions play with two ideas, roughly being perfection, good, eternal and so on in opposition to corruption, decay, sin, death and the like. What I am suggesting is that arithmetic, life and everything could not exist in a system that is fundamentally corrupted. That is telling us that there are mistakes in those two religious categories.

Than show it and stop asserting it. Assertions are not arguments.

firstfloor
12-21-2014, 08:02 AM
And in the cosmology of the ancient world; the heavens and earth were seen as eternal. So in saying that the word of God will outlast what is considered to be eternal, it is saying God, not the heavens and earth, are eternal. I am truly amazed at the basic ignorance you keep displaying on even the most basic of stuff...Christian theology is a tangled mess. It has been over analysed to the point of nonsense.
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/deceptive-knots-of-certainty/

firstfloor
12-21-2014, 08:07 AM
Than show it and stop asserting it. Assertions are not arguments.http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/than.html

lilpixieofterror
12-21-2014, 01:41 PM
Christian theology is a tangled mess. It has been over analysed to the point of nonsense.
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/deceptive-knots-of-certainty/

Sorry FF, but argument by web link isn't allowed here. Now do you have an actual argument here or do you just want to rant again?

lilpixieofterror
12-21-2014, 01:41 PM
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/than.html

If you can win by logic, try attacking errors in grammar. :lmbo:

firstfloor
12-21-2014, 02:47 PM
If you can win by logic, try attacking errors in grammar. :lmbo:It is a very minor fault but you keep repeating it. Just want to help where I can. And, “can” should be cannot, I suppose. You are maybe just rushing a bit because you are annoyed with me.

I am not sure what part of the explanation I have already given is troubling you.

Incidentally, I find the apologetic method of jigsaw fashion Bible reading wholly unconvincing because it sure wasn’t written that way.

lilpixieofterror
12-21-2014, 02:52 PM
It is a very minor fault but you keep repeating it. Just want to help where I can. And, “can” should be cannot, I suppose. You are maybe just rushing a bit because you are annoyed with me.

Or because I mix up similar sound words and similar looking letters. Nah, that can't be the answer. The answer you like is that I must be 'annoyed' with you, so that is the one you choose.


I am not sure what part of the explanation I have already given is troubling you.

Incidentally, I find the apologetic method of jigsaw fashion Bible reading wholly unconvincing because it sure wasn’t written that way.

Don't try to be a mind reader, you suck at it. Come back when you have an actual argument. :thumb:

One Bad Pig
12-21-2014, 04:01 PM
Christian theology is a tangled mess. It has been over analysed to the point of nonsense.
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/deceptive-knots-of-certainty/
Oh, the irony. . . . :duh:

Teallaura
12-21-2014, 06:13 PM
What I am suggesting is that truth is related to and relies on consistency and repeatability across time. Nothing very interesting would emerge from a system that decays like the goats and the lions. Your calculator would not be able to produce the same answer to the same problem every time.

Religions play with two ideas, roughly being perfection, good, eternal and so on in opposition to corruption, decay, sin, death and the like. What I am suggesting is that arithmetic, life and everything could not exist in a system that is fundamentally corrupted. That is telling us that there are mistakes in those two religious categories.

You skipped about a hundred steps in this. Let's start over - what is truth, in your opinion?

firstfloor
12-21-2014, 11:58 PM
Or because I mix up similar sound words and similar looking letters. Nah, that can't be the answer. The answer you like is that I must be 'annoyed' with you, so that is the one you choose.Okay. That is a more interesting explanation altogether. I hope you don’t mind if I ask you if it helps to have things pointed out or not.

firstfloor
12-22-2014, 12:51 AM
You skipped about a hundred steps in this. Let's start over - what is truth, in your opinion?That is not an easy question to answer. ‘Truth’ is a bit cloudy.

The ordinary dictionary definition seems to be reasonable: that which comports with reality or is accepted as true. The second part of that definition is at odds with the first because it refers to beliefs rather than facts; but it is the type of truth that is most commonly encountered.

The truth that exactly comports with reality might not be available to us but we can approximate it very closely by using scientific methods and in everyday situations there is plenty that can be done to establish practical truths by sifting through various evidences. For example, a jury can decide on the ‘facts’ (fingerprints and the like) if something is ‘true’ enough to put a person to death.

firstfloor
12-22-2014, 03:34 AM
Oh, the irony. . . . :duh:Tangled mess hardly begins to describe it:
In religions, we have the idea that God created everything (for us). Everything being ‘made’ means that only God’s eternal ‘Universe’ (wherever it is that He resides) is natural and permanent. Our universe is artificial with respect to God’s natural universe. We tend to think of it backwardly and pretend that we are natural and He is super-natural. [We can put this confusion down to gravity – it being difficult to go up] If anything, if we assume a natural standpoint ourselves then God is sub-natural.

What is greater – the artist or his art? Does art worship or love its artist? If God loves the world, is it not just because He loves His art? But a sculptor does not expect his sculpture to love him back? It seems to me that the function of a work of art is to inspire in other people the same emotions that inspired it. It copies ideas. It seems therefore a very odd thing to think of ourselves as being both the creation and the purpose of creation.

In fact, we have very selfish reasons for thinking that and being so entangled in these strange concepts. We worship God because we want something from Him – the elixir of immortality; the magical potion that gives eternal life and eternal youth. Religions are an expression of this very ancient quest. If we ever succeed, it will be achieved through science, not religion. In that case, with any luck, we should hope to have the wisdom to refuse the gift offered us.

Teallaura
12-22-2014, 10:52 AM
That is not an easy question to answer. ‘Truth’ is a bit cloudy.

The ordinary dictionary definition seems to be reasonable: that which comports with reality or is accepted as true. The second part of that definition is at odds with the first because it refers to beliefs rather than facts; but it is the type of truth that is most commonly encountered.

The truth that exactly comports with reality might not be available to us but we can approximate it very closely by using scientific methods and in everyday situations there is plenty that can be done to establish practical truths by sifting through various evidences. For example, a jury can decide on the ‘facts’ (fingerprints and the like) if something is ‘true’ enough to put a person to death.
Okay, so the problem is that you cannot distinguish between truth and uncertainty. Truth is not affected by our ability to ascertain it. Whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 remains unchanged whether Bob the mathematician or Billy the goat is asking. Bob is more likely to arrive at the correct answer than Billy who is more likely to eat the paper than anything else, BUT the truth of the statement remains unaltered - 2+2 is still four, even while Billy munches on the arithmetic book.

Our ability to know that something is or is not true is affected but other factors - level of ability, comprehension, ability to gather data, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Because we seldom have a perfect ability to ascertain knowledge there is always a degree of uncertainty. That degree may be very very small - such as the degree of uncertainty that unsupported objects fall, especially when a vulnerable toe is nearby; or very large - such as the degree of uncertainty that unicorns exist. In both cases we proceed from the assumption of truth - and wear steel toed boots as appropriate while not bothering to hunt for unicorns. In neither case is certainty 100% although we generally regard both statements as true (gravity exists; unicorns don't).

But here's the thing - uncertainty has no effect on truth. A thing is true or not true whether or not we are certain. Gravity may not exist - might just be an elaborate cosmic hoax - but if it does exist, then it is always true that gravity exists. No matter how uncertain we might be (try being submerged in the dark and see how sure you are about gravity right then) gravity either exists or it doesn't. Uncertainty does not impact truth. Uncertainty is only a factor in learning and understanding truth.

The existence of uncertainty doesn't make everything uncertain in the colloquial sense, like you seem to be using it. And science itself is but a tool in the arsenal of epistemology - and not always the best one (really stinks at determining beauty, style, and whether or not to watch Bonanza or I Love Lucy). Nor is uncertainty a determinant factor in relativism (relativism makes all things equal - including equally uncertain, if we applied it, which we shouldn't) although that seems to be the gist of your argument. You strike me as a relativist who is trying to use uncertainty to extend the relativism argument into the philosophic and physical - could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

The dictionary had it right.

firstfloor
12-22-2014, 02:34 PM
Truth is not affected by our ability to ascertain it.The thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality. It is that which “cannot be fooled” to quote Feynman.


Our ability to know that something is or is not true is affected but other factors - level of ability, comprehension, ability to gather data, et cetera,“True” is being used differently here to mean our understanding of reality per the ordinary definition.


But here's the thing - uncertainty has no effect on truth. A thing is true or not true whether or not we are certain.Again, the thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality.


You strike me as a relativist who is trying to use uncertainty to extend the relativism argument into the philosophic and physical - could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.I do not think that all points of view are equally valid. Ordinary senses are hugely augmented by scientific methods and instruments.

Jedidiah
12-22-2014, 02:54 PM
ff, would you say that truth (as you use the term) is only applicable to the physical realm? Is it totally inapplicable to use it in a spiritual sense?

firstfloor
12-22-2014, 04:12 PM
ff, would you say that truth (as you use the term) is only applicable to the physical realm? Is it totally inapplicable to use it in a spiritual sense?I would say that reality, because it is testable, is the only thing that we can say true things about. There may be “spiritual truths” as well but I think these tend to be about human beings, their emotions, rituals, traditions, wonder about the world, the mysteries of procreation and death – human centred questions. They are different but they tend to get muddled up with the truths about reality and cause much confusion.

Teallaura
12-23-2014, 12:11 PM
The thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality. It is that which “cannot be fooled” to quote Feynman.

“True” is being used differently here to mean our understanding of reality per the ordinary definition.

Again, the thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality.So you don't know the difference between truth and reality? Seriously?

Basically, you just tossed your entire argument. Truth comports to reality, remember? Your entire lions/goats nonsense goes out the window.



I do not think that all points of view are equally valid. Ordinary senses are hugely augmented by scientific methods and instruments.
The first point we agree on. The second is utter nonsense in this context - so what? Augmented senses don't necessarily perform better (try telling colors apart with night vision goggles) and even when they do, don't necessarily result in a different outcome than expected. :huh:

firstfloor
12-23-2014, 03:20 PM
So you don't know the difference between truth and reality? Seriously?Truth is something we say about reality. I think it is always an approximation; there is always a small gap between what we believe reality to be and what it actually is. Nevertheless, the gap is typically small enough that we do not notice it as we go about our daily lives and therefore we do agree that truth does indeed comport with reality. By augmented senses I was thinking about mathematics, telescopes and particle accelerators.

I will come back to this later. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the holiday.

Pentecost
12-24-2014, 06:33 PM
I haven't posted in this thread since it was on topic, but did firstfloor deny the ability to discern truth? Firstfloot would you call yourself a relativist?

And I hope you are having a nice Winter.

firstfloor
12-29-2014, 02:54 AM
I haven't posted in this thread since it was on topic, but did firstfloor deny the ability to discern truth? Firstfloot would you call yourself a relativist?

And I hope you are having a nice Winter.If you can discern truth then so can I. I don’t think I am a relativist but I also do not object to it in the way that religions do. In my view, the absolute reference for truth is reality; the persistence and movement of light and matter, but our experience of the world is translated by our senses. For example, if we think about colour vision and the electromagnetic spectrum we might begin to wonder if the world is really coloured in the way it looks to us. The local radio station is just as present but you need a special instrument to ‘see’ it and it has no colour. It would appear that colour is made in our eyes and brains.

In general, there seems to be a difference between what we think the world is like using our human centred ordinary experience and descriptive language, and what is really going on; all the stuff that has been discovered by science and mathematics.

Jedidiah
12-29-2014, 02:32 PM
Pretty sophomoric ff.

Pentecost
12-29-2014, 09:25 PM
If you can discern truth then so can I. I don’t think I am a relativist but I also do not object to it in the way that religions do. In my view, the absolute reference for truth is reality; the persistence and movement of light and matter, but our experience of the world is translated by our senses. For example, if we think about colour vision and the electromagnetic spectrum we might begin to wonder if the world is really coloured in the way it looks to us. The local radio station is just as present but you need a special instrument to ‘see’ it and it has no colour. It would appear that colour is made in our eyes and brains.

In general, there seems to be a difference between what we think the world is like using our human centred ordinary experience and descriptive language, and what is really going on; all the stuff that has been discovered by science and mathematics. Ok ff, it was just that you saying truth was different from reality that threw me off then. But your explanation does lead me to ask if you think our scientific instruments will ever make reality completely knowable? If not would you say it is because the universe is trancendant?

firstfloor
12-30-2014, 01:49 AM
Ok ff, it was just that you saying truth was different from reality that threw me off then. But your explanation does lead me to ask if you think our scientific instruments will ever make reality completely knowable? If not would you say it is because the universe is trancendant?If it turns out that there are practical limits to our technology, financial resources or cleverness and we just hit a ‘brick wall’ we won’t be able to draw any definite conclusions. I don’t think we can substitute “transcendent” for lack of scientific knowledge because it is one of those tricky words that may refer to aspects of God’s nature.

Here is Laurence Krauss being pessimistic about what can be discovered:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascn8kUXO1c
The sound quality improves a bit at 7 minutes.

firstfloor
12-30-2014, 03:42 AM
Pretty sophomoric ff.What is your objection?

Jedidiah
12-30-2014, 11:57 PM
What is your objection?

Those are the sort of questions that concerned me at 10 years of age.

firstfloor
12-31-2014, 03:46 AM
Those are the sort of questions that concerned me at 10 years of age.Well then, you may be overdue for a review of your basic beliefs.

lilpixieofterror
12-31-2014, 06:15 AM
Well then, you may be overdue for a review of your basic beliefs.

:duh:

He's saying you're ideas are childish and you're the one who is due for a review of your basic beliefs. Do you not know how to read for basic context?

firstfloor
12-31-2014, 06:43 AM
:duh:

He's saying you're ideas are childish and you're the one who is due for a review of your basic beliefs.So, what am I missing LPOT?

Jedidiah
12-31-2014, 02:04 PM
Well then, you may be overdue for a review of your basic beliefs.

I did that when I was about 33 or 34 and have had no need to change anything, in spite of much examination and review.

Jedidiah
12-31-2014, 02:05 PM
So, what am I missing LPOT?

Way too open ff, way too open. I cringe to think of what you may get in response.

Pentecost
12-31-2014, 07:33 PM
If it turns out that there are practical limits to our technology, financial resources or cleverness and we just hit a ‘brick wall’ we won’t be able to draw any definite conclusions. I don’t think we can substitute “transcendent” for lack of scientific knowledge because it is one of those tricky words that may refer to aspects of God’s nature.

Here is Laurence Krauss being pessimistic about what can be discovered:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascn8kUXO1c
The sound quality improves a bit at 7 minutes.
Okay, that's about what I expected you to say. Thank you very much for answering my questions. Happy New Year ff!

firstfloor
01-01-2015, 09:43 AM
Okay, that's about what I expected you to say. Thank you very much for answering my questions. Happy New Year ff!You are welcome. Happy new year to you too.

lilpixieofterror
01-02-2015, 05:09 AM
So, what am I missing LPOT?

Knowledge, for starters.

firstfloor
01-02-2015, 05:34 AM
Knowledge, for starters.Thing is LPOT that I am so smart that I can immediately tell that you are thinking of something quite specific and not something as general as “knowledge”. So, I’m not giving you any points for that one.

I’ll tell you what. I don’t think you can describe any significant lack in my outlook without using words that even you do not understand. I think this is true because religious people are essentially obscurants.

I hope this is the start of a wonderful new year for you.

granpa
08-26-2015, 11:15 AM
Standard Myers Briggs only allows Introvert or Extravert.
If it were accurate it would also allow both and neither as options.
Same for the other pairs

Thus there would be 4^4 distinct personality types

Autistic people are neither Intuition nor Sensing types
Aspergers are neither Judging nor Perceiving types