The work of Satan...

Satya said:
Because I don't see his point. He quoted me and I'm not sure what he was getting at.
Click to expand...

Really, you can't possibly guess at what he is hinting at. He's insinuating that you are trying to force people to question their beliefs and maybe that it's a little hypocritical.
 
Barnabas said:
Really, you can't possibly guess at what he is hinting at. He's insinuating that you are trying to force people to question their beliefs and maybe that it's a little hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I can't force anyone to question their beliefs. All I can do is try to get them to choose to do so of their own free will.
 
Satya said:
I can't force anyone to question their beliefs. All I can do is try to get them to choose to do so of their own free will.
Click to expand...

Hey don't look at me, I just found it odd that you couldn't see what was going on.
 
Barnabas said:
Hey don't look at me, I just found it odd that you couldn't see what was going on.
Click to expand...

You and just me are distorting my words. There is a difference between trying to force someone to question their beliefs and teaching them that they have a choice to do so.
 
Satya said:
You and just me are distorting my words. There is a difference between trying to force someone to question their beliefs and teaching them that they have a choice to do so.
Click to expand...

As such, I am the greatest threat to a religion. I am the "deceiver" since to get people to suffer free will I have to get them to question what they believe without them realizing I am doing it. I have to plant the seeds of doubt.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call this teaching. This is much closer to force although more a more passive form. That is what you get for working with someone who declares he works hand in hand with satan doing his work.
 
Hoggle said:
I'd hardly call this teaching. This is much closer to force although more a more passive form. That is what you get for working with someone who declares he works hand in hand with satan doing his work.
Click to expand...

I like to call it a "head fake". It is where you teach someone something without them even realizing you are doing it. It is deceptive but educators do it all the time and it is very powerful.
 
Satya said:
I like to call it a "head fake". It is where you teach someone something without them even realizing you are doing it. It is deceptive but educators do it all the time and it is very powerful.
Click to expand...

You do understand manipulation is a form of force, also I'm not manipulating anything. I just found the way you were questioned Just Me's post as a bit passive aggressive.
 
Barnabas said:
You do understand manipulation is a form of force, also I'm not manipulating anything. I just found the way you were questioned Just Me's post as a bit passive aggressive.
Click to expand...

You found, "What is your point?" to be passive aggressive? How the hell do you get passive aggressive from 4 words? When you read my posts now, do you imagine I always have a sarcastic tone or something? I mean, jeez, if I can convey passive aggressiveness with 4 words, I have reached the zenith of word smithing.

Interesting. Is manipulation a form of force? That seems awfully philosophical. Maybe it deserves its own thread.
 
Satya said:
You found, "What is your point?" to be passive aggressive? How the hell do you get passive aggressive from 4 words? When you read my posts now, do you imagine I always have a sarcastic tone or something? I mean, jeez, if I can convey passive aggressiveness with 4 words, I have reached the zenith of word smithing.

Interesting. Is manipulation a form of force? That seems awfully philosophical. Maybe it deserves its own thread.
Click to expand...

Passive agressive may not be the best word, but I don't really have any other words to describe it. It seemed that meaning of his words were so obvious that what you were saying seemed off. No offense but your a little to clever to let something like that slip over your head, kind of like the U.S. history Teacher not knowing what year the U.S. entered WWII* and then poking the answer out of his students.





*it's 1942
 
Barnabas said:
Passive agressive may not be the best word, but I don't really have any other words to describe it. It seemed that meaning of his words were so obvious that what you were saying seemed off. No offense but your a little to clever to let something like that slip over your head, kind of like the U.S. history Teacher not knowing what year the U.S. entered WWII* and then poking the answer out of his students.





*it's 1942
Click to expand...

Ah, yes I knew what he was insinuating. I wanted him to say it. He quoted segments of my posts out of context in order to make me look hypocritical. If I get him to say what he meant, it destroys the effect and allows me to discuss the actual message he is trying to convey, not a vague insinuation.
 
Satya said:
Ah, yes I knew what he was insinuating. I wanted him to say it. He quoted segments of my posts out of context in order to make me look hypocritical. If I get him to say what he meant, it destroys the effect and allows me to discuss the actual message he is trying to convey, not a vague insinuation.
Click to expand...

Well those things don't need much context Satya, they are kind of straight forward, Not to mention the fact people have likely already read both threads. We have such observant members. If you want to give them context though, then by all means do so.
 
Hence the point of consensus and measurement. We create standardize measures so that we have an objective means of conveying our perceptions.

Now if you want to play the postmodernist and try to argue that there is no way to prove objective reality, then fine. Of course, that is the best evidence that there isn't a God, or if there is one, that they don't want us to know they exist because then they made the entire universe in such a way that it is impossible to prove their existence.
Click to expand...

Okay, but this is a thread discussing religion not the metric system. Religion is a belief system and a person's beliefs and perceptions are subjective. [MENTION=4481]Zukkor[/MENTION] 's point is perfectly valid and relevant to what was being argued:

InvisibleJim: It's impossible to deal with people who have truly irrational beliefs which are not based upon visual evidence and analysis. Just leave them to it.
Zukkor: Visual evidence and analysis are just subjective truths. What visual evidence is there to a blind man?

To throw in a comment negating Zukkor's point on a static level using consensus and measurement is missing the point entirely. Visual proof still means nothing to a blind man. So how does he deal with what is real if he cannot rely on visual perception? He has to rely on truths and realities as is relative to him. Could you argue over what color a flower is with a blind man? Call it postmodernism, call it whatever you want.

Herein lies the crux of religious faith and/or beliefs: You have to subscribe in some degree to some type supernatural presence or transcendent higher power that obviously cannot be rationalized scientifically, only subjectively. Faith wouldn't be faith if you could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's the beauty of it, to trust in something bigger than what is easily perceived. So what if I can't prove the existence of God to you? Science will never prove what happens to our souls when we die, how and why the universe was created or what the meaning of life is. Ever. We can only take our best educated guess. Undebatable.

If you can't accept a person's beliefs, you can't have an argument. Which brings us back to [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION] 's point, why argue the point with someone whose perception you deem irrational?

:deadhorse:

Thanks for Godwinning my thread.
Click to expand...

You're welcome! It's always more fun when we can throw Hitler into the mix!

Whether or not it is considered "pseudoscience" is completely beside the point. The point is that the theory of racial superiority was presented in an analytical manner and accepted as scientific proof by consensus. They were applying facts, proven by science, to produce a superior race. Because of its "scientific validity" the theory was accepted by the people as a whole (via decision-makers) to justify the murder of millions of people.

BTW, by detailing the racist American statisticians above, you argue my point that analysis can be skewed depending on whoever is analyzing for me.

I find it quite infuriating that the school system has done such a poor job educating people on the difference between pseudoscience and real science that people like yourself continue to bring examples like the one above as "science"
Click to expand...

Take a deep breath. Don't be infuriated.

You just completely missed my point --no harm, no foul.
 
Last edited:
Sensiko said:
Why argue the point with someone whose perception you deem irrational?
Click to expand...

It helps me understand the nature of intuition. I have learned a tremendous amount about how people think from debates that I can never win. I have a very comprehensive model of intuition now.
 
Satya said:
I like to call it a "head fake". It is where you teach someone something without them even realizing you are doing it. It is deceptive but educators do it all the time and it is very powerful.
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want. The point is you are a deceiver and a manipulator preying on people who come to you for help.
 
You can only provide people the information, you cannot force them to choose the answer you prefer when provided with the same information as you have or they will lack the perspective and growth to advance over the next mole hill/mountain.

Genuinely different perspectives exist even if some don't believe that is acceptable and may wish to enforce change to their position upon other individuals.

As I say, a rational/evidence based person will make judgement based upon the information provided whilst respecting the limits of that information. It's only a matter of time and experience that will allow them to change how they view the information to a more accurate conclusion either of you will re-evaluate given time and experience.

Naturally, if you force someone to adopt your conclusion/need for rationalisation without them having decided to do so they will miss the steps in creating that change and will have to backtrack to discover it before they can face the next challenge. As I say, another matter of time and experience.

Therefore there is nothing to fear from disagreement because time and experience will resolve this.

The only persons you need fear are those who exclude others from this process.
 
Last edited:
what tremendous fears and a strong will for power there must be behind such beliefs in order to exclude oneself from scientific knowledge. the latter is the basis of falsification, of freeing oneself from worldviews, which cannot embrace the available data of a given time.

to exclude oneself from falsification flows into an absolute world view - a standard in a fundamentalistic interpretation of religion. thus, the issues at stake cannot bei seriously discussed because the integrity of the system has to be maintained - in doubt, scientific data have to be left standing. the discussion cannot be made on a semantic level, because the main issue is not knowledge, but fears and aspirations of participating in divine powers.

i consider myself as a christian
 
Last edited:
to me, INFJs would have all it takes to see what the presuppositions of a fundamentalistic belief are and would then have no trouble in relativizing this. so, idealtypically, infjs would be less prone to such beliefs. but unconscious fears are alas stronger most of the time.

what do you guys think: INFJs and fundamentalistic beliefs. can this go together?
would INFPs have a bigger inclination to this, since the core of their structure is the integrity of their inner world?
 
Andy Quellenlicht said:
what do you guys think: INFJs and fundamentalistic beliefs. can this go together?
would INFPs have a bigger inclination to this, since the core of their structure is the integrity of their inner world?
Click to expand...
I don't think so... The INFP may be guided by their inner world and passionate about their beliefs, but Fi is checked by Ne..

This means that they are always gathering new information and possibilities to add to the framework, and opinions and beliefs can expand, shift, and change entirely depending upon how the information they have gathered lines up with their personal feelings.

You may meet an INFP who is fervent about something and find them a few years later possessing a very different opinion. INFPs seem to try on many hats.

I have no idea which type would go best with fundamentalist beliefs though.
 
Last edited:
It is possible that a dogmatic, fundamentalist view and a highly rational, observation-based view could become simply two sides of the same over-symplified coin. Each makes assumptions (that are not necessarily accurate) and each considers the opposite view to be semi-irrelevant. Neither may be open to integrating various perspectives into a more holistic viewpoint. It's pretty bad when one invests heavily in perspectives, or counter-perspectives, based on simplistic assumptions. Too often the cure is even worse than the malady.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top