User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 67

  1. #31
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Do Agnostics Tend To Be Perceivers? I don´t know, but it´s interesting to contemplate the concept whether or not MBTI has any correlations.

    If I were to examine the issue I would not look at the letter P. Using my own personal experiences as a comparison, I´ve noticed that as I age (I´m 42) I am more sure about some things and ¨decided¨. However as a consequence of experience, my exposure to new and different things has increased the absolute number of things I need to consider and has illuminated my own inability to truly ¨know¨. Consequently I believe any correlation, if there is, between MBTI and agnosticism, must also be take into consideration other factors like: age, gender, nationality, et. al.

    In that vein I would suggest taking into consideration cognitive functions. Specifically Ti vs. Te. If I were a betting man, I´d say you are more likely to find a correlation there. Taking that one step further, Ti Perceivers.

    I´d also like to add one more thing, these self labeling systems and the evolving terms to go along with them, are social & political constructs. I think this is relevant to the question because social acceptance can be a bigger deal to some ¨types¨ than others.

    FTR I am an atheist INFP.

    Good luck on your inquiries.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #32
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Give me some details.
    Russell's_teapot
    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    That pink unicorn thing, well, that's another story.
    invisible, so how do you know its pink? but putting boring cliche's aside... you are seen the difference in the implication of the unknown information piece rather than the nature of the information piece:

    the main difference isn't specifically about god, but rather how you view the question:
    agnostics tend to view it as a straight forward yes/no question: he either exists or he doesn't, 50/50, all equal grounds.

    atheists \ tea pot agnostics (we can go into the difference later if it's needed but i guarantee you this convo will go way off topic if we do) tend to view beliefs/assumptions on a probability scale and put god on the low end of it, a.k.a. "god is possible but unlikely". so you can say he is as unlikely as the tooth fairy, as unlikely as the flying spaghetti monster, as unlikely as santa claus, zeus, underwear gnomes, etc'.

    but how do you apply probability to complete unknown? statics you can't measure? Occam's razor - a Ti deity in his own right :p - tries to answer that, and one way you do that is by breaking down the theory and counting the number of blind assumptions you are actually making. for example for the monotheist god to exist, i am not making just one assumption - i am assuming that the nature of existence can support him, i am assuming that matter and energy can be produced from nothing, which means i am assuming there's a reason it never happens around us, i am assuming the capacity to interact and place with every particle regardless of conditions, and i am assuming there are billions of reasons for the creator to do everything that happens - every single little thing - as well as seemingly rearrange the universe to show that there is always a cause other than himself to explain it, etc.

    in short: you break it down and you will find an endless series of assumptions, so whether god exists isn't a 1 in 2 coin toss, rather, each and every single assumption required to support it becomes a 1 in 2 coin toss, and you need all of them to come up on top. the more coins you'll throw, the smaller the chances are that they will all land on the same side. in the case above, the chance is significantly slim.

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    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.
    if one does that straight forward you end up with a spinozian god:
    I.E. if a pizza is not defined by it's toppings, the cheese or the sauce, if a pizza is beyond the need for bread.. what is a pizza? is my chair a pizza? is this laptop? they certainly well could be, but does a pizza really exist? can you really exclude anything from the possibility that it might be a pizza? in which case, you do indeed have a parameter defining a pizza - that if it exists we know it is defined by it's very existence, there are no boundaries on what is or isn't a pizza, so if pizza exists, everything in existence is thus pizza! the universe is pizza! i believe in the universe! i believe in pizza!

    alternatively, you can go the gnostic definition, in which case we don't set parameters for god, but we set parameters for everything else that we believe to not be god, and god becomes the great unknown, the sum of all unrealized possibilities, god is essentially all that does not exist, defined by virtue of being incomprehensible....

    - i've done that in my teens, but then i looked at myself and realized i am getting lost in the ecstasy of inferring the universe through poetic meanings, and when it comes down to it it's a trick of my own mind - the human mind's need for "cold" to define the lack of heat, or "static" to define the lack of motion. even if god is defined as the incomprehensible, we can comprehend ourselves enough to see that the need to do to see the incomprehensible as an object rather than the simple lack of comprehension, is part the distortion within our own mind, a trick of our own very human and very semantical eye which has nothing to do with the nature of the universe outside of us.

    which redefines the question into the nature of subjectivity - do you define us as subjective view points within the objective universe or do you define the universe as perceived points of consistency within a subjective universe. again i realized the divide isn't something that's actually there - rather it's an odd limit of view points regarding semantic constructs which makes including both difficult. the points of consistency do infer an objective universe in which subjective view points exists and vise versa - either way the playing field is the same, two sides of the same coin. either way you are left with the realization that if there is an objective universe, we are able to become aware of our subjective distortions through it, and if there isn't, we have an ability to experience a sense of viewing our own minds as distorting it.

  3. #33
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    oh i should probably give some lip service to the OP...

    P (imp)
    atheist - friday to monday
    agnostic on weekends
    gnostics every couple of months.

  4. #34
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    I.E. if a pizza is not defined by it's toppings, the cheese or the sauce, if a pizza is beyond the need for bread.. what is a pizza? is my chair a pizza? is this laptop? they certainly well could be, but does a pizza really exist? can you really exclude anything from the possibility that it might be a pizza? in which case, you do indeed have a parameter defining a pizza - that if it exists we know it is defined by it's very existence, there are no boundaries on what is or isn't a pizza, so if pizza exists, everything in existence is thus pizza! the universe is pizza! i believe in the universe! i believe in pizza!
    It reminds me of Lichtenberg's most famous aphorism, about a knife without a blade, and whose handle is missing. What is this knife, then? And why our mind is still telling us it is a knife?
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #35
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I didn't see any effective difference. Also, chances are you're mistyped - you don't sound like a Ni-dom at all.
    Nuances make all the difference. It's like the difference between "I think I am mistyped" and "I believe I am mistyped."

    Think and Thought


    to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.

    to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation

    to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts

    to call something to one's conscious mind

    to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.

    to invent or conceive of something

    to have consideration or regard for someone

    to esteem a person or thing as indicated

    to have a belief or opinion as indicated

    Believe and Belief.


    to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

    to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

    to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

    to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation

    to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause)
    That bold part is the only definition closest to believe and belief. You'd notice that believe and belief has a type of assertion that one or the other does/doesn't exist while think allows for more breathing room.

    An Atheist believes god doesn't exist, and a Theist believes a god/deity(s)/afterlife exist.

    An Agnostic thinks that if a god exist, we wouldn't know until said god appears.

    Agnostic
    a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

    a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

    a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

  6. #36
    Bunnies & Rainbow Socks Kayness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    348

    Default

    agnosticism and atheism are two different things; agnostic refers to the view that the existence of a deity/deities are unknowable and atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.

    Anyway enough semantics. I don't think this is type related.

    and @Marmotini is right, thanks for mentioning atheistic religions lol you beat me to it...I sometimes forget that myself even though the main religion in the country of my birth is Buddhism which is an atheistic religion, because when I interact with English speakers online they tend to be overwhelmingly from countries that have Judeo-Christian traditions, so naturally theism=religion & atheism=irreligion.

    haven't read the whole thread though so I don't know if somebody else said what I already said (sorry I got to get back to work!)
    9w1 4w5 5w4 sp/sx RCUAI
    art blog
    Twitter

    "I set about seeking a style in the realm of legend. Something that might allow me to give free rein to my juvenile sense of romanticism and the beautiful image"
    - Leni Riefenstahl
    [/CENTER]

  7. #37
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    It reminds me of Lichtenberg's most famous aphorism, about a knife without a blade, and whose handle is missing. What is this knife, then? And why our mind is still telling us it is a knife?
    huh, maybe if i knew about that earlier i wouldn't be craving pizza...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kayness View Post
    agnosticism and atheism are two different things; agnostic refers to the view that the existence of a deity/deities are unknowable and atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.
    i sort of hate that kool aid - it's rigged so that you can't opt-out out of that system: i would very much like to not play the religious game at all, but no matter what stance you take you are still playing that game. wanting to not playing the game means you're playing it as an agnostic/atheist/whatever. i can be a secular jew, i can even become a christian jew or a muslim jew or a buddhist jew, i can't not be a jew.

  8. #38
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I'm fairly certain I'm a P, and I'm fairly certain I am atheist.

  9. #39
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kayness View Post
    agnosticism and atheism are two different things; agnostic refers to the view that the existence of a deity/deities are unknowable and atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.
    I hear this tired explanation every time someone dares to use the word "agnostic." Agnostic is also used colloquially as a state of being neither a theist nor an atheist. Some argue that this is just implicit atheism (as in a newborn baby). It can be, but I'd argue that this is not always so. It's similar to apatheism (someone who just doesn't care), but not quite. Someone who considers himself or herself an agnostic likely has given much thought on the issue, but feels he or she does not have enough information to take a stance on the issue. Consider the issue of the death penalty. You hear both sides of the argument, but can't decide whether you're for or against the death penalty. You are "agnostic" (note the quotes) in this situation.

    I agree it is not the best word to describe the situation, but there is a reason people use it this way.

    Anyway enough semantics. I don't think this is type related.
    Funny enough, this tends to be the conclusion we arrive in many of these threads asking if X type is more likely to do Y.

  10. #40
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    i will say this - the ExxJs i've known to be believers, do it with an extreme ferocity.

    ExxPs - not so much.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Do your friends tend to be E's or I's?
    By Saslou in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 06:44 PM
  2. [MBTItm] xNFP females, do you tend to be better friends with males?
    By angelhair45 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 06-21-2010, 11:48 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Do NFJs tend to be the most private types?
    By Glycerine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-10-2009, 09:19 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 10:02 PM
  5. What type do you aspire to be?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 09:54 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