You totally forgot about spiritual seekers, Zen Buddhists, etc.
I dont think its just zen buddhists, I was impressed by Hans Kung's book What I Believe in which he talks about a life long search for God which may only finish with the end of his life, so much so that I believe I am on the same path.
Unlike buddhists I think that enlightenment and nirvana are by products of the search for God, as much as happiness is the byproduct of something else rather than the goal itself per se.
Change that question to "Do you think a god/diety(s)/afterlife exists?
And you'd get a better opinion from me. That answer is I don't know, because I don't have knowledge of whether they exist, even if we expended enough resources to explore the entire universe (or something equally far in the future,) I'd guess there are still questions left unanswered where believing or not believing in them would not make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
If you give me a question like, "Do you believe or disbelieve in a god/deity(s)/afterlife?"
The answer is neither, because my answers aren't about belief. It is about whether I/we know these things exist or not. And for that answer, there isn't an answer. I don't believe nor disbelieve. I either know or don't know.
I didn't see any effective difference. Also, chances are you're mistyped - you don't sound like a Ni-dom at all.
A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '
You must be NJ then and not SJ, because otherwise you would be a sheep in following the faith, but instead you attack all the religions and think God is some toxic human construct with no relation to reality!
In some ways I agree, as far as God being seen incorrectly, but as you said before, even if there is an ultimate lifeform somewhere, why call it God?
anecdotally from my life: no - i've known many judges who are agnostic.
if anything, i think probability theory is almost like a designer drug custom made for INTPs, so many more of them are going to be tea-pot-agnostics or "it's possible but about as probable as the flying spaghetti monster / pink invisible unicorn" variety, which is generally code for "practically atheist but gets lost in semantics".
That is a great example of the tendency towards needing specific data points. Each of those concepts (FSM, PIU, etc.) have specific parameters. The more parameters you place on the concept of God, the less likely it is to exist. My approach to agnosticism is not placing specifically defined concepts of god within their probabilities of existing. Every concept of god a human being defines will be a subset of that human being's ability to conceive of an idea. Taking specifically defined concepts of god and then deciding whether or not it could exist seems to me like a ridiculous mental activity, and yet it does dominate these discussions.
My move from theism to agnosticism was a process of dismantling each parameter I was taught to place on this concept of "god". Once completely dismantled, the question was no longer pointing at an idea and deciding if it could exist. The questions became "what is the nature of the universe" and "what evidence is there that human beings possess the hardware to comprehend it". Looking at every other creature on the earth it is possible to see and define the limits of their perception and cognition. When an ant crawls up my arm, it responds to stimuli, but will not comprehend my existence. We can also look at other human beings and measure the distortions and limits of cognition through testing. The only thing we have proof of is that we have finite capacity to comprehend reality.
It seems like that is the only responsible way to address topics that are assumed to be on a level beyond our comprehension as human beings. So agnosticism is not saying there is a .0000000000001% chance the spaghetti monster exists, it is saying that in all probability, human beings cannot comprehend the entire nature of reality which could involve higher levels of sentience than we understand, or it could be without comprehension beyond ourselves.
The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas. H.G. WELLS
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY
As a social psychological or anthropological fact I've got to say that the whole "God is dead" thesis is correct, its not been a good thing though.
And it is a shame but most people operating in that context and environment if they should "come to" God are going to doing so in a manner which looks a lot like adopting or creating a "social construct".
This is part of the reason I really like good historical accounts of life before all this, when the brain was patterned differently and the superego or conscience was stronger than it is today and there was much less in the way of rationalisations for selfishness and wrong doing.