What, Ns are incapable of looking up and analyzing facts? That's pretty derogatory, just like saying that Ss are incapable of understanding theoretical concepts.
Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
What, Ns are incapable of looking up and analyzing facts? That's pretty derogatory, just like saying that Ss are incapable of understanding theoretical concepts.
It's a simply fact that Ns will always question the facts. That is what makes them intutives. If I only went by what I could readily observe, then I would have no desire to delve into philosophy. Ss are capable of understanding theoretical concepts, but they will generally believe what they observe over what they can conceive. That is what makes them sensors.
N's are more apt at the theoretical, S's with the practical. That's one of the ways you can tell an INTP apart from an ISTP -- whether they like quantum physics or working on the car (not saying that they're limited to that, but generally that's a pretty decent start-point)
But what does that have to do with your assertions that Ni users will assume certain positions based on intangible and indescribable certainty, while Ne users will be "frightfully comfortable with ambiguity"? Are there no happy mediums?
If not, I will simply assert that this is just your Ni talking, and bother with no further argument.
What I find funny reading threw all this is that no one is denying God here just the way people worship. We should all be able to worship any God any way we feel. We should not have to worry about others telling us that the way we choose to worship God is wrong. We should be able to sit in our houses at night and not have representatives of different religious sects knocking on our doors telling us we are going to hell because we don't believe what they do. I am so tired of hearing that I am going to hell all the time. I am in hell and I am trying to lift myself out of it but all of you religious types keep trying to pull me down and save me! Please save yourselves first! If you really want to save us try setting a better example.. Then maybe you will have a means of reaching people. It seemed to work for Jesus....
Satya is talking about Ni and Ne in isolation, most people will temper those functions with other functions, so they can "win". Same goes with sensors, we can temper our sensing with a bit of Ne or Ni so we aren't completely closed to possibilities, most (balanced) people end up meeting somewhere near the middle.
In this context, that would imply that those who claim certainty based on Ni (be it political, spiritual or of another kind) are less balanced (or more strongly preferenced, if you like).
What purpose do you think judging functions serve? Life would be pretty archaic if it was based simply on perceptions.
Then can we call spiritual "certainties" based on Ni archaic? Or do you have some Ti analysis to validate them?
BenW, I'm going to apologize in advance for tearing into your posts but you're arguing in circles and I have to take a crack at this.
1. You say people who are religious/superstitious/what ever else you want to call it are deluded. Congrats, you think people are deluded. I think you're deluded by your faith and arrogance that you are always right because you 'use' logic. Your logic is full of fallacies thus I think you're deluded.
Did we settle anything by that? Nope, didn't think so. All this is is ad hominem
2. Is this a fact or an opinion because you're presenting it as a fact. If you love facts so much I want your proof with empirical evidence, otherwise you're delusional.
3. Seeing as you rely and believe in facts and evidence so much, I'd like some for this, and let me make it crystal clear; I want numbers/graphs/pie charts/what ever that states specifically, and I quote "more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not". I don't want numbers of people killed by the actions of people, I want hard proof that in fact more people have been killed my religion than not.
In the end it's the people who did the killing, not religion. You can't place blame for people's actions on inanimate things such as ideas. People get killed by cars, so cars are to blame, right? Or is it the people driving the cars...
4. To quote you (in yet another circular use of your arguement), because violence exists in religion, violence that is outside of religion and is "vehemently defended by a large portion of the population" is blameless for it's share?
5. And you are not delusional for believing in something so strongly as science? That in science/empirical evidence alone lie the answers? What if science can't prove the answers to everything? To believe in science you have to have faith that science is right. Sure, there is "evidence" but that evidence exists solely in the belief that the "evidence" is correct. Science can only be proven by empirical evidence, much like religious arguments can only be proven in faith. You can't argue faith with science or science against faith because they exist separate from each other.
6. This is an argument from authority, aka fallacie!!!
Congrats! you had a harmful upbringing, do you want a cookie? Just because it was pernicious (I can use big words too
) to you does not mean it is across the board. Logical fallacie.
7. So something is wrong if there is a lack of evidence? Just because it can't be proven means it holds no water? What if someone's faith follows along the lines of science/empirical evidence and they use faith to fill in the blanks? The stuff science can't prove. Science answer's how and faith/religion answers why. They both are creations of mankind and you're using one to disprove the other but they are on completely different playing fields. Just because you don't believe in the why doesn't discredit those who do.
You're playing refferee in a soccer match while handing out penalties by the rules of basketball.
Science and faith are seperate and can't be proven or disproven by the other, but they can work together if there is acceptance and acknowledgement of eachother.
8. Believe in evidence all you want but it's only true because you believe it to be and others believe it to be. Lack of evidence doesn't prove or disprove, so don't use it to discredit other's opinions.
9. Aren't you the one who's saying other people are wrong because they don't believe in the way you do? Please explain what your point in saying this is.
10. Intellectual surrender? Are you kidding me? Don't be niave. Because one feels beyond the five senses they are wrong? I'm not saying they are right but this is just name calling. You're assuming they give the same importance to "empirical evidence" as you do.
I hate it when I see people agressively push and use reason as an argument against faith; the same people saying that faith/religion is dangerous because it tells people how to think. Hypocritical. The bullshit excuse is anti-religion can do so because they have facts on their side, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, facts are only facts if one believes them to be so, it doesn't matter if the belief that "science and facts are indeed true" is a widely held popular opinion, because in the end it is just that, nothing more than an opinion.
When will people realize that there indeed could be more to this world than our five senses can percieve? I'm not saying that there is or isn't, but it is a possibility. If it's beyond our five senses, no matter what we do we will never be able to prove or disprove it, but does that make it any less real (potenionally)? I mean the Tralfamadorians (anyone get this reference?) could see in four demensions and Billy couldn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
1. You say people who are religious/superstitious/what ever else you want to call it are deluded. Congrats, you think people are deluded. I think you're deluded by your faith and arrogance that you are always right because you 'use' logic. Your logic is full of fallacies thus I think you're deluded.
Did we settle anything by that? Nope, didn't think so. All this is is ad hominem
2. Is this a fact or an opinion because you're presenting it as a fact. If you love facts so much I want your proof with empirical evidence, otherwise you're delusional.
3. Seeing as you rely and believe in facts and evidence so much, I'd like some for this, and let me make it crystal clear; I want numbers/graphs/pie charts/what ever that states specifically, and I quote "more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not". I don't want numbers of people killed by the actions of people, I want hard proof that in fact more people have been killed my religion than not.
In the end it's the people who did the killing, not religion. You can't place blame for people's actions on inanimate things such as ideas. People get killed by cars, so cars are to blame, right? Or is it the people driving the cars...
4. To quote you (in yet another circular use of your arguement), because violence exists in religion, violence that is outside of religion and is "vehemently defended by a large portion of the population" is blameless for it's share?
5. And you are not delusional for believing in something so strongly as science? That in science/empirical evidence alone lie the answers? What if science can't prove the answers to everything? To believe in science you have to have faith that science is right. Sure, there is "evidence" but that evidence exists solely in the belief that the "evidence" is correct. Science can only be proven by empirical evidence, much like religious arguments can only be proven in faith. You can't argue faith with science or science against faith because they exist separate from each other.
6. This is an argument from authority, aka fallacie!!!
Congrats! you had a harmful upbringing, do you want a cookie? Just because it was pernicious (I can use big words too
) to you does not mean it is across the board. Logical fallacie.7. So something is wrong if there is a lack of evidence? Just because it can't be proven means it holds no water? What if someone's faith follows along the lines of science/empirical evidence and they use faith to fill in the blanks? The stuff science can't prove. Science answer's how and faith/religion answers why. They both are creations of mankind and you're using one to disprove the other but they are on completely different playing fields. Just because you don't believe in the why doesn't discredit those who do.
You're playing refferee in a soccer match while handing out penalties by the rules of basketball.
Science and faith are seperate and can't be proven or disproven by the other, but they can work together if there is acceptance and acknowledgement of eachother.
8. Believe in evidence all you want but it's only true because you believe it to be and others believe it to be. Lack of evidence doesn't prove or disprove, so don't use it to discredit other's opinions.
9. Aren't you the one who's saying other people are wrong because they don't believe in the way you do? Please explain what your point in saying this is.
10. Intellectual surrender? Are you kidding me? Don't be niave. Because one feels beyond the five senses they are wrong? I'm not saying they are right but this is just name calling. You're assuming they give the same importance to "empirical evidence" as you do.
I hate it when I see people agressively push and use reason as an argument against faith; the same people saying that faith/religion is dangerous because it tells people how to think. Hypocritical. The bullshit excuse is anti-religion can do so because they have facts on their side, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, facts are only facts if one believes them to be so, it doesn't matter if the belief that "science and facts are indeed true" is a widely held popular opinion, because in the end it is just that, nothing more than an opinion.
When will people realize that there indeed could be more to this world than our five senses can percieve? I'm not saying that there is or isn't, but it is a possibility. If it's beyond our five senses, no matter what we do we will never be able to prove or disprove it, but does that make it any less real (potenionally)? I mean the Tralfamadorians (anyone get this reference?) could see in four demensions and Billy couldn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Yes, I would say that until Ni "certainties" are validated by a judging function, they tend to be fairly archaic. They represent nothing more than suspicions or hunches. I do have Ti analysis of a lot of my Ni "certainties" so to speak but I'm particularly reliant on extroverted judging functions when it comes down to it.
Not really. I've pointed them out before but they are what they are regardless of whether anyone acknowledges them.
So if a murderer believes they didn't murder someone then who are we to convict him? If belief is truth and evidence irrelevant.
It makes it a whole lot less relevant, especially to society. Society should be based on things our senses can perceive, things that can be shared, tested and repeated by anyone. That is the only fair way to rule. Our legal system is based on it, but people want to (and have) influence the legal system based on invisable bogeymen and spaghetti monsters, it's completely alien and bizarre to me!
Sure it's completely irrelevant to us, but if it's "the truth" then it's "the truth". Why ostracize someone for believing it? I'm not advocating applying it to other people, but at the same time don't apply your relevant reasonings against my ability to simply believe in something you don't and act on that belief (such as prayer or deciding how to raise my children yada yada yada) in an non-impeding way.
Goddamnit, Strawman! You're changing my arguement. All I'm saying is belief in science at it's core is the same as belief in anything else. You can never "prove" something to be true because what is true? To do so everyone would have to believe in the same truth.
What if the majority of the society senses invisible bogeymen and spaghetti monsters?
Personally? I think folks are misguided and they make things too complicated. I also think people don't study enough on their own, even though they have plenty of resources to do so. I also think that most of the time religion-goes-wrong it's because one person took one portion of the text and made that text (and him/herself) more important than God. They themselves had the "right answer" and everyone else was "way off base".
And then they fight for the right to be right.
When people decide to put God first (or, if you will, Ruler of the Universe) then it doesn't matter what the whack-jobs say or do.
Or maybe that's just my Ni talking. When I hear something that doesn't sound right, I usually question it and return to the source rather than believe the talking head.
I would still prefer to be judged on the evidence rather than the belief of the majority.