Announcement

Collapse

Psychology 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Tweb's couch. Please join us in discussing the joys of the human psyche. Watch in wonderment as the Tweb crowd has violent mood swings. help us understand what makes us tick.

Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.
See more
See less

Myers-Briggs and atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    ...which is not the definition you gave.
    Yes it is .... disbelieves.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      "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/quickquestio...-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...
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        Yes it is .... disbelieves.
        No, uncertain. The two things are not the same, Oscar...
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          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.

          Source: Life and Letters, 1, T.H. Huxley



          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.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Source: The Agnostic Annual, T.H. Huxley



          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.

          1. 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.
          2. 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.

          © Copyright Original Source



          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,

          Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism

          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.

          © Copyright Original Source



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

          Source: http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html

          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.

          © Copyright Original Source



          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.

          Comment


          • #95
            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.
            Last edited by AlphaBravo; 12-18-2014, 03:00 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              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.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                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.
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  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'.

                  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.
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    .... 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.
                    Last edited by firstfloor; 12-19-2014, 03:16 AM.
                    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                    “not all there” - you know who you are

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      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.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        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."
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          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.
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                              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.
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                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.
                                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Bill the Cat, 02-21-2024, 07:44 AM
                                73 responses
                                339 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Working...
                                X