MBTI type and belief in god

[iamathousandapples]

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.

 

[Polaris]

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.

 

[Saslou]

Just openminded. Neither for it or against it.

Got plenty of time before i meet him.
lol

 

[iamathousandapples]

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.

 

[simulatedworld]

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?

 

[Wonkavision]

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.

 

[simulatedworld]

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.)

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.

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.

 

[Polaris]

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Decline]

I don't believe in a traditional god-figure per se, but a mysterious energy of the sort is not out of the question.

 

[simulatedworld]

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!

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.

 

[Spamtar]

ROFL!

That first link is hilarious. And add me to the list of agnostic NFs.

"INTP: INTPs are always right, therefore they should skip right to atheism, with an option on immortality as a simulation in a computer of unimaginable complexity at the end of time as proven by the laws of physics."

That’s me but instead of a qualified atheist (as noted above) I am a qualified theist. Perhaps one who pisses off more than theists when they talk religion than atheists.

PS. I didn't get the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” application to Pascal’s Wager but I admit that too it is also a new one. Its to the point where I now feel compelled to sacrifice a meatball to him. Wait I just saw an Unidentified Flying Italian saucer outside!

 

[simulatedworld]

^ I guess I've jumped the gun by not asking for your definition of God.

But I believe I did say I was referring to literal/fundamentalist interpretation.

If you have some other interpretation of God, then fine, but you should probably specify.

 

[Polaris]

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!

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%?

You're missing a point. My expectations have a habit (if not a requirement) of getting satisfied, and because of that habit, I put a lot of faith in my expectations. If my expectations started to fail all the time, then I would really be at sea. This relates to the way that we form beliefs: either through watching a particular outcome several times or (and this is actually a byproduct of the latter) purely on whim. What you've done basically is put the cart before the horse. Expectations are determined by experiences, and only with that as the starting point do things function in the reverse order, with our expectations determining reality for us. And before you accuse me of suggesting that reality is purely what we expect it to be, not to mention a closed loop that could never grow, please do recall that I said our expectations are never satisfied. There's a random, unexpected element that brings in new material, and it's the duty of our expectations to shape our perception of that.

 

[MonkeyGrass]

I struggle with the concept of God, and all the implications of the subject. I waffle, usually landing on the side of belief. My NF combo does tend to make me more prone to believe in the spiritual, since it feels like a very real probability to me.

I would not, however, describe myself as a fundamentalist. I suppose I don't view God as much of a fundamentalist, either.

 

[simulatedworld]

You're missing a point. My expectations have a habit (if not a requirement) of getting satisfied, and because of that habit, I put a lot of faith in my expectations. If my expectations started to fail all the time, then I would really be at sea. This relates to the way that we form beliefs: either through watching a particular outcome several times or (and this is actually a byproduct of the latter) purely on whim. What you've done basically is put the cart before the horse. Expectations are determined by experiences, and only with that as the starting point do things function in the reverse order, with our expectations determining reality for us. And before you accuse me of suggesting that reality is purely what we expect it to be, not to mention a closed loop that could never grow, please do recall that I said our expectations are never satisfied. There's a random, unexpected element that brings in new material, and it's the duty of our expectations to shape our perception of that.

You are a total INFJ.

I have lots of experiential evidence to indicate that the probability of a literal conscious entity God's existence is extraordinarily low.

I can detail them if you really care, but I have a feeling it won't make much of a difference.

 

[Polaris]

You are a total INFJ.

Pray tell why you think so.

I have lots of experiential evidence to indicate that the probability of a literal conscious entity God's existence is extraordinarily low.

I can detail them if you really care, but I have a feeling it won't make much of a difference.

And you don't think a Christian could say the same thing about his beliefs? That's not how it works, Simulated. It's all in our heads, these belief things of ours. I could easily prove that the earth is a giant kidney stone if I wanted to.

 

[simulatedworld]

Pray tell why you think so.

And you don't think a Christian could say the same thing about his beliefs? That's not how it works, Simulated. It's all in our heads, these belief things of ours. I could easily prove that the earth is a giant kidney stone if I wanted to.

It's all in our heads, these belief things of ours.

That's the very definition of Ni, the dominant function of INFJs.

INFPs display a more externally flexible attitude and base their internal beliefs on more supposed "objective truths" of the universe (Fi); the idea that there is no objective truth and that it's all purely up to interpretation is quite Ni.

 

[Nyx]

You are a total INFJ.

I have lots of experiential evidence to indicate that the probability of a literal conscious entity God's existence is extraordinarily low.

I can detail them if you really care, but I have a feeling it won't make much of a difference.

Can you put forth this evidence? What about non-physical consciousness?

 

[Polaris]

It's all in our heads, these belief things of ours.

That's the very definition of Ni, the dominant function of INFJs.

INFPs display a more externally flexible attitude and base their internal beliefs on more supposed "objective truths" of the universe (Fi); the idea that there is no objective truth and that it's all purely up to interpretation is quite Ni.

I'm an INFP with well-developed Ni, that's all. If you could see how crazily Ne I am, how disorganized and irresponsible I used to be, and how difficult it can be for me to make decisions outside the lofty realms of the head, you would change your mind. Don't forget, either, that we're all actors. We put on one mask only to don a different one. Perhaps I'm an INFJ on Typologycentral, an ISTP when I feed the cat, and an ENTJ while I take a nap. These things aren't set in stone, you know. But this is a digression, so you should probably visit my message wall if you have anything to add to that.

 

[rainoneventide]

Another agnostic NF here. Mostly because:
"The only thing that we know is that we know nothing, and that is the highest flight of human wisdom."
- Tolstoy