User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you believe in astrology?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • SP - believes in astrology

    1 2.13%
  • SP - does not believe in astrology

    3 6.38%
  • SJ - believes in astrology

    0 0%
  • SJ - does not believe in astrology

    2 4.26%
  • NT - believes in astrology

    7 14.89%
  • NT - does not believe in astrology

    11 23.40%
  • NF - believes in astrology

    6 12.77%
  • NF - does not believe in astrology

    17 36.17%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 57

  1. #31
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Why, do you have compelling arguments/facts to discredit the whole theory?

    If not you don't necessarily have to fear for humanity.
    ....yes. The fact that there is literally not a shred of evidence or rationale involved. That's a pretty compelling reason to not believe in something.
    -end of thread-

  2. #32
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    ....yes. The fact that there is literally not a shred of evidence or rationale involved. That's a pretty compelling reason to not believe in something.
    There is indeed one major rationality behind it, which is what the whole theory is based on.

  3. #33
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I cannot fathom how reliance on astrology actually still exists. I would have expected it to be shed of thought sooner than God, to be honest.

  4. #34
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    There is indeed one major rationality behind it, which is what the whole theory is based on.
    Go on.
    -end of thread-

  5. #35
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Go on.
    You do your research, you find the basics, you prove it wrong and you come here and let it known - should be the proper way.

    Not - You condemn it, you let us know that you condemned it, you realize you don't know / don't know the basics and then you ask us to Go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    I cannot fathom how reliance on astrology actually still exists. I would have expected it to be shed of thought sooner than God, to be honest.
    The concept of God still survives and would for a long time to come. Make it a thousand years or make it a million, it would always be there atleast among a dozen people in a universe occupied by billions. The concept of God / belief in God will only fade away with individual experience, never by science or popular belief.

    Besides the concept of God would have made a bit/lot of sense if he wasn't written to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

  6. #36
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    You do your research, you find the basics, you prove it wrong and you come here and let it known - should be the proper way.

    Not - You condemn it, you let us know that you condemned it, you realize you don't know and then you ask us to Go on.



    The concept of God still survives and would for a long time to come. Make it a thousand years or make it a million, it would always be there atleast among a dozen people in a universe occupied by billions. The concept of God / belief in God will only fade away with individual experience, never by science or popular belief.

    Besides the concept of God would have made a bit/lot of sense if he wasn't written to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

    My phrase was a little dramatic. Let me revise: sooner than polytheism.

  7. #37
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    You do your research, you find the basics, you prove it wrong and you come here and let it known - should be the proper way.

    Not - You condemn it, you let us know that you condemned it, you realize something is missing and then you ask to Go on.
    Got it, so there is no rationale after all. Just making sure.

    To clarify universal debate rules for you, the onus is always on the person making a statement like "This happens" to provide evidence or at the very least, a rationale. The onus is never on the person who is skeptical to disprove ridiculous statements. This avoids the ridiculousness of things like me stating that invisible purple unicorns pull the earth around its orbit, and forcing you to build a space shuttle to disprove it. Astrology is pretty much on that level for me. Certainly less plausible than the idea of a god, and I am an atheist.
    -end of thread-

  8. #38
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @greenfairy

    It only appears to go both ways because if somebody is typed completely wrong, you contest it or correct it.

    This is why it would be absurd to have an INTJ that has never acted like an INTJ.

    Typology does not address causes at all. It categorizes observed results - period. Being an NF or whatever is not a material cause of anything. It's an arbitrary category. It's a handle. It's not like there's some kind of typology genes or typology synapses, and overall it doesn't matter because it cares how you act, not how you got that way.

    Saying that one is an NF for example doesn't explain anything about how one even came to have that function or why they have it. There could be hundreds of physical ways to arrive at a similar function.


    I know people believe otherwise but those people are wrong.
    End of.

    Edit:
    Typology is like taxonomy without being able to actually see the animals, and only going by what they eat, how they sound, their footprints, etc etc. This is why there are behaviors and classes that don't fit. You might think you're following a jaguar but it could actually be a leopard - you don't really know what it actually is.
    I'm not suggesting typology is a cause of anything, I'm saying it describes causes. It's not just a collection of behaviors. It has a lot to do with preferences, and reasons for those preferences which go back to cognitive functioning and psychology. Like I'm an introvert not because I behave like one all the time, but because interacting with strangers all the time drains my energy and I need to have a little bit of time alone to gather my thoughts. The underlying principle is that my energy is primarily directed inward rather than outward. That's a preference based on a psychological characteristic, not a behavior. The underlying principle is explanatory, and the collection of principles comprises a type, which is also explanatory. My behavior is that I choose some activities over others in some circumstances when I am in certain moods, but categorizing me as an introvert explains why I do those things. And if it is like taxonomy as you suggest, then it does go both ways too; if the jaguar confirms that she is a jaguar, then you can infer from that that she has other jaguar characteristics. And if a behavior puzzles you, you can use what you know about jaguar biology (along with other observed behavior) to theorize why she would behave that way.

  9. #39
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I'm not suggesting typology is a cause of anything, I'm saying it describes causes. It's not just a collection of behaviors. It has a lot to do with preferences, and reasons for those preferences which go back to cognitive functioning and psychology. Like I'm an introvert not because I behave like one all the time, but because interacting with strangers all the time drains my energy and I need to have a little bit of time alone to gather my thoughts.
    That describes what an introvert is. You are called that because you exhibit that effect. Doing that is behaving like an introvert and is how you identify it.

    The underlying principle is that my energy is primarily directed inward rather than outward. That's a preference based on a psychological characteristic, not a behavior.
    Characteristic, trait, behavior, they're practically the same thing. It's based on a thing that you are doing or have a tendency to do. That's what a characteristic is - a trait, mark, behavior, etc.

    The underlying principle is explanatory, and the collection of principles comprises a type, which is also explanatory. My behavior is that I choose some activities over others in some circumstances when I am in certain moods, but categorizing me as an introvert explains why I do those things.
    I beg to differ. It does not explain why you do those things. It merely names you as one who does tend to do those things.

    This is like saying a person is right handed because they predominantly use their right hand - it's self descriptive because they are the same thing - a right handed person is a person with right hand dominance. One is not because of the other, the one is the other.

    You might infer right handedness as a trait but it doesn't arise just because the person has a right hand preference, since that preference is the same characteristic of right handedness.

    And if it is like taxonomy as you suggest, then it does go both ways too; if the jaguar confirms that she is a jaguar, then you can infer from that that she has other jaguar characteristics. And if a behavior puzzles you, you can use what you know about jaguar biology (along with other observed behavior) to theorize why she would behave that way.
    My point there was that you can't necessarily confirm it.

  10. #40
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    That describes what an introvert is. You are called that because you exhibit that effect. Doing that is behaving like an introvert and is how you identify it.


    Characteristic, trait, behavior, they're practically the same thing. It's based on a thing that you are doing or have a tendency to do. That's what a characteristic is - a trait, mark, behavior, etc.


    I beg to differ. It does not explain why you do those things. It merely names you as one who does tend to do those things.

    This is like saying a person is right handed because they predominantly use their right hand - it's self descriptive because they are the same thing - a right handed person is a person with right hand dominance. One is not because of the other, the one is the other.

    You might infer right handedness as a trait but it doesn't arise just because the person has a right hand preference, since that preference is the same characteristic of right handedness.


    My point there was that you can't necessarily confirm it.
    Well I don't know how to explain my opinion any more clearly, and you've explained yours well, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

    Edit: Ok, I'll have another go at it. How's this: categories and the things they describe create each other. You can't really have one without the other and have a deep understanding of things. Arguably you can create order out of chaos, but if you are only seeing chaos, you are not seeing the organizing principles behind it, and the categories are used to describe them. It's like a filing cabinet. You can either get one and label the drawers before you have anything to put in it, or you can have a huge pile of papers, put them into smaller piles, and then decide you need a filing cabinet. The drawers exist for the purpose of having papers, but they can also be used to decide where a paper goes if you are confused. And within the drawers are folders and subfolders, divided into sections. The larger and more general the category, the more explanatory power it has because it's describing an underlying more general principle. Like Ti and Te are subcategories of thinking. We use these concepts to describe certain cognitive processes which produce behavior. We all think and we all feel, we all sense and intuit, and this system of organization is true independent of specific behavior.

    Maybe at this point we are debating semantics, but there is a two directional process to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    My phrase was a little dramatic. Let me revise: sooner than polytheism.
    Are you suggesting that monotheism makes more sense than polytheism? Pardon me if the answer lies earlier in the thread.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI type and belief in god
    By TSDesigner in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 385
    Last Post: 12-23-2015, 12:39 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-09-2013, 11:07 AM
  3. In Charity There is No Excess - Help Type Me!!
    By Applez in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 10:45 PM
  4. is MBTI type related with economic condition?
    By niki in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-14-2009, 07:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO