User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 386

  1. #41
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    What if Lucifer and his demons won the war against God and his angels? He/she would probably like the evil Satanists and war mongers, torturers/rapists the most; Hate the Christians/theists the most (maybe he would like some of the real mean terrorists and wackjobs within the bunch; dislike the upbeat main stream pagan religions, and probably like or at least be relatively neutral towards the athesits souls when it came to dishing out punishment for not backing the right horse.
    You wouldn't have the choice to back the wrong horse if Satan won, much less any choice at all. The satanists aren't really about Lucifer at all, just an Antithesis to Christianity. Because Lucifer's main complaint to God was that he gave them freewill, whereas Satanism is all about using freewill, which Lucifer would not have stood for.

  2. #42
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamathousandapples View Post
    Because Lucifer's main complaint to God was that he gave them freewill, whereas Satanism is all about using freewill, which Lucifer would not have stood for.
    Are you sure you're not confusing the Bible with Paradise Lost? The only thing I remember Lucifer having a problem with in the Bible was God's superiority.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  3. #43
    Senior Member Saslou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    Just openminded. Neither for it or against it.

    Got plenty of time before i meet him.
    lol
    “I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower, you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see—and I don't.”
    ― Georgia O'Keeffe

  4. #44
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Are you sure you're not confusing the Bible with Paradise Lost? The only thing I remember Lucifer having a problem with in the Bible was God's superiority.
    Maybe. I'll have to check again. There's a good chance I am.

  5. #45
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Dogmatic belief =/= religion. If that were so, everything we believe would fall under religion, since we form a belief either without thinking about it or on the bases of an arbitrary judgment. You might argue that probability of truth-hood makes some beliefs superior to others. But probability is based on the assumption that the future will repeat the past--an assumption that always proves false, or time would stop--as well as faith in one's own experience as an accurate measure of unexplored realms--another assumption which proves false, otherwise "unexplored" would mean nothing.

    Probability, in other words, exists only to the extent that things freeze in place and cease to change. But nothing ever ceases to move; it's only in our heads that things screech to a halt, and even there, you'll find a lot of movement.

    So probability exists in your head and only as a projection of the past into the unknown. No such projection is bound to accuracy, for if it were, the unknown would not be the unknown. Nor is there any reason to believe that your projection will even resemble the future. If it doesn't, then you revise your probability calculations, that's all.

    But you'll seek for a binding rule that predictions must have some truth in them; why else would we possess them? They can't be in vain, surely. You'll look to those who show a knack for using models or relying on their intuition to predict the future. But that only brings us back to point one: you've assumed that the past prescribes the future. A model can fail in an instant, and the greatest foresight can give way to blindness.

    What this tells me is that probability is more like a stockpile of past experiences arranged into a subjective pattern that suddenly breaks off at the point where the future begins. It's more like a filing cabinet that arranges memories into a useful system than it is an oracle.

    What this means, then, is that choosing to believe something will prove true rests on the plainly false assumption that your pattern will go unbroken. Your beliefs are not only uncertain; they're bound to prove false, for this is in the very nature of time. The only upshot is that you can nevertheless find satisfaction in what lies ahead; perhaps certain variations of the past's rhythm, for example. Either way, to believe is only to point to a thought of yours and on that basis make a doomed prediction.
    So you've spent six paragraphs essentially asserting that nothing about the past or the present allows us to predict anything about the future with any degree of certainty whatsoever, so we should assume that all possible outcomes are equally likely and that everything is 100% random. You've essentially claimed that intuition doesn't exist/is never useful, a proposition I can't even remotely agree with.

    Well gosh, that doesn't sound like a particularly practical lifestyle. I sure hope I don't get eaten by a dragon on my way out of the house tomorrow.

    Come to think of it, I should probably stay in because, since the future apparently never resembles the past (????), it must be equally likely that dragons exist and that they don't exist. That's pretty scary.


    P.S.,

    I have a blackjack game at my house every weekend. Would you like to come?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #46
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    Religion and Type - An MBTI Perspective Someone's humorous ponderings.

    The Relation of Jungian Psychological Type to Religious Attitudes and Practices Study on type differences and belief.

    I'm an agnostic NF.
    ROFL!

    That first link is hilarious.



    And add me to the list of agnostic NFs.
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  7. #47
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Well it is uplifting to know that most atheists are now more open to the possibility God exists. Most I have met don't share your view and are pretty much doom and gloom.
    Ask the next atheist you meet how certain he is that God doesn't exist. If his answer is 100%, he's a moron, but most of them don't think the probability of God's existence is 0%...they just consider it low enough to not warrant serious consideration.

    Again I implore you to review Russell's Teapot.

    Relatively few atheists will claim they have absolute certainty of anything; most just use induction to show why God's literal existence is improbable enough to not warrant serious concern (hence the reason Pascal's Wager is a total failure.)


    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Nunki notes
    "Either way, to believe is only to point to a thought of yours and on that basis make a doomed prediction."
    That's retarded. See my response to Nunki.


    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    The T/T(i) in me appreciates the doubt or the possibility that my N/N(e) knowledge of God is a hallucination of some sorts. At the Same time my TP can appreciate the Pascalian logic that if my faith/N(e) is wrong than the worst case scenario is that I was a lot nicer to a lot more people than I would normally choose to be and I become worm food with egg on my face, jokes on me.
    On the other hand if my faith/N(e) is right I have avoided eternal damnation and gained paradise. A bookmaker would clearly see the upsides to how I chose to bet my soul. I have raised this point before with both atheists and religious fundamentalists and both never give me a response I feel addresses this logic directly. They either seem to be of the view that it is a sin or cowardly to choose to logically hedge my bet towards the bigger payoff.

    This is called Pascal's Wager and it's been repeatedly destroyed by so many different people that if you haven't yet heard about why it's absurd and totally ineffective, you're probably actively avoiding knowledge on the topic (or at least not actively seeking any new information/education.)

    To explain in short, Pascal's Wager fails because the "infinite negative consequence" it promises is arbitrarily invented and never substantiated. It begs the question because I could offer precisely the same argument for anything--if you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you'll suffer eternally; therefore, you have pot odds on believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right?

    I'm afraid your bookie would recognize what a horrible bet this really is. That's like saying, "I always bet on jack high in poker, just in case we get a phone call before the end of the hand saying the powers that be have decided that jack high now beats a royal flush (and all other hands)."

    Can you PROVE DEFINITIVELY 100% that the official rules of poker will not change before my jack high loses? No? WELL THEN I'M STICKING TO MY STRATEGY.

    Nevermind how ludicrously improbable this event is, it's not technically totally impossible, so that's apparently an excuse to arbitrarily put 100% faith in it? Nope, sorry--don't buy it.

    So according to Nunki's logic, I have no basis for assuming that the rules of poker will not change before the end of the hand, so it's equally effective to assume that they will. I hope you can see why that's so clearly absurd...he's openly claiming that reality has zero predictability whatsoever, which is just hilarious.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #48
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    So you've spent six paragraphs essentially asserting that nothing about the past or the present allows us to predict anything about the future with any degree of certainty whatsoever, so we should assume that all possible outcomes are equally likely and that everything is 100% random
    Not exactly. When people think ahead, their expectations eventually get tested by whatever lies down the road. Insofar as these expectations are satisfied, which is something that gets determined in hindsight, the future proves non-random. How random the future will be, however, can't be determined until it ceases to be the future; any attempt to determine the randomness of the future in advance only constitutes another test like the one I mentioned. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to predict the future, but that we should keep in mind that actual foresight isn't the functional purpose of probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well gosh, that doesn't sound like a particularly practical lifestyle. I sure hope I don't get eaten by a dragon on my way out of the house tomorrow.
    Welcome to my world.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    P.S.,

    I have a blackjack game at my house every weekend. Would you like to come?
    No, gambling is against my religion. Well I don't have one, so I'll have to say it's against my spirituality although I can't imagine how.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  9. #49
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    I don't believe in a traditional god-figure per se, but a mysterious energy of the sort is not out of the question.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  10. #50
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Not exactly. When people think ahead, their expectations eventually get tested by whatever lies down the road. Insofar as these expectations are satisfied, which is something that gets determined in hindsight, the future proves non-random. How random the future will be, however, can't be determined until it ceases to be the future; any attempt to determine the randomness of the future in advance only constitutes another test like the one I mentioned. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to predict the future, but that we should keep in mind that actual foresight isn't the functional purpose of probability.

    Welcome to my world.
    Right, but claiming that the future has zero predictability in any situation whatsoever is completely ridiculous. If you think that, you must be one awfully paranoid person--anything we can imagine happening is equally likely to happen as anything that's already happened, so why don't you get yourself an anti-tiger rock and some tin foil hats?

    After all, you might be abducted by aliens, or eaten by tigers, or abducted AND eaten by tiger/alien hybrids--I know that's never happened to you before, but that's no reason to expect it not to! GET A TIGER ROCK PRONTO!


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    No, gambling is against my religion. Well I don't have one, so I'll have to say it's against my spirituality although I can't imagine how.
    Do you think that a skilled gambler could beat you over the long term in a game like poker? Doesn't this obviously prove that reality has at least some degree of predictability, even if not 100%?

    By the way, have you considered the possibility that you might actually be INFJ? Your posts seem very Ni.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI Type and I.Q.
    By RansomedbyFire in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1059
    Last Post: 08-20-2017, 08:04 AM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 01:28 PM
  3. Your MBTI type and your Socionics type
    By 527468 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:03 PM
  4. MBTI type and Hypnotizability
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 02:05 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