User Tag List

View Poll Results: Ni Dom Users: Which best describes your beliefs about God?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • INTJ: I believe there is a God

    8 14.29%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a >50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    1 1.79%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a 50-50 chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    3 5.36%
  • INTJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a <50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    5 8.93%
  • INTJ: I believe there is no God

    15 26.79%
  • INFJ: I believe there is a God

    9 16.07%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a >50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    2 3.57%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a 50-50 chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    4 7.14%
  • INFJ: I am agnostic, but believe there's a <50% chance that some kind of Divinity exists

    5 8.93%
  • INFJ: I believe there is no God

    4 7.14%
First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 140

  1. #81
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    How do you know the INTJs that voted for god or neutral have well developed F? I like to think I do as well. Enough to question my type, but that doesn't mean I can accept the existence of a theistic god. Or really any higher power in the way major religions have done so thus far.
    I'm just going off the anecdotal evidence described in my post: an ENFP who mentioned a week or two ago four INTJs she knows who, contrary to popular belief about INTJs, have well developed F functions, and how they voted disproportionately away from disbelief (75%) relative to the total INTJ voting population (~31%).

    It's by no means rigorous or scientific, as we don't have any objective measure, or even anecdotal evidence, about how well developed the other voting INTJs' F functions might be.

    Also, just an fyi, the idea of the Divine, for the purpose of this poll, was to be left as open and broad as possible, and by no means was meant to be held down by the traditions of any of the major religions.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Hmmm... Well, I'm certain I'm an atheist. I'm probably agnostic as far as the rest goes. It's hard for me to think about a higher power, without putting it into the context of a god-like being that I really can't get behind. However, maybe there's something else. I'm not sure how to express it.

  3. #83
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Hmmm... Well, I'm certain I'm an atheist. I'm probably agnostic as far as the rest goes. It's hard for me to think about a higher power, without putting it into the context of a god-like being that I really can't get behind. However, maybe there's something else. I'm not sure how to express it.
    I like to ask myself, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

    Thinking about that question puts me in connection with my conception of the Divine...

  4. #84
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I also like this book: God's Debris

  5. #85
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I'm just going off the anecdotal evidence described in my post: an ENFP who mentioned a week or two ago four INTJs she knows who, contrary to popular belief about INTJs, have well developed F functions, and how they voted disproportionately away from disbelief (75%) relative to the total INTJ voting population (~31%).

    It's by no means rigorous or scientific, as we don't have any objective measure, or even anecdotal evidence, about how well developed the other voting INTJs' F functions might be.

    Also, just an fyi, the idea of the Divine, for the purpose of this poll, was to be left as open and broad as possible, and by no means was meant to be held down by the traditions of any of the major religions.
    A psychological preoccupation with emotional responses to the exclusion of the development of one's rational faculties results in a disheveled mind and a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality. Admitting to oneself a disheveled mind and a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality is uncongenial; we all fancy ourselves well-rounded. It's more pleasing to label the resultant psychological miasma that accompanies poorly developed rational faculties as "spirituality" and to label the mystery that reality appears to be as a result of a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality "that which man cannot, in his miserableness and limitation, possibly comprehend" and be done with it.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  6. #86
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    ^

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    A psychological preoccupation with emotional responses to the exclusion of the development of one's rational faculties results in a disheveled mind and a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality.
    Correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that your saying this after quoting what I had written implies that these INTJs with supposedly well developed F functions are so at the detriment of their rational faculties, because it seems like that's what you're implying.

    If that's the case, then you're a joke, and your opinions are essentially meaningless.

    If not, then please, let me know what it was that you were intending, if anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Admitting to oneself a disheveled mind and a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality is uncongenial; we all fancy ourselves well-rounded. It's more pleasing to label the resultant psychological miasma that accompanies poorly developed rational faculties as "spirituality" and to label the mystery that reality appears to be as a result of a lack of a comprehensive and accurate model of reality "that which man cannot, in his miserableness and limitation, possibly comprehend" and be done with it.
    And if this is to imply that one can develop an accurate model of reality without the requisite presence of uncertainty, and thus, combined with curiosity, mystery, then, once again, you are a joke and your opinions are essentially worthless.

    But if you were not implying that a spiritual mindset need be accompanied by "a psychological preoccupation with emotional responses to the exclusion of the development of one's rational faculties", then we can be in accord.

  7. #87
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that your saying this after quoting what I had written implies that these INTJs with supposedly well developed F functions are so at the detriment of their rational faculties, because it seems like that's what you're implying.

    If that's the case, then you're a joke, and your opinions are essentially meaningless.
    Any activity pursued is at the expense of those not; all things are at the expense of others in our finite experience of reality. In order for the development of one psychological function not to be to the exclusion of the development of other psychological functions it would be necessary that (1) functions are finite; i.e., that they could only be developed to a certain point, and no further, and (2) any function could be developed to such a point within less than the lifetime of the average human being, so as to facilitate developing multiple functions fully within one lifetime.

    I find both of these requisites tenuous and extremely unlikely. If you can demonstrate either that (a) the requisites I posit -- my premises -- are mistaken, or (b) that both requisites are, in fact, possible, you'll have my fullest attention.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #88
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I find both of these requisites tenuous and extremely unlikely. If you can demonstrate either that (a) the requisites I posit -- my premises -- are mistaken, or (b) that both requisites are, in fact, possible, you'll have my fullest attention.
    Demonstrate?



    Shall we set up a laboratory where we can conduct our experiments to do so?

    What I will do is claim (likely accurately, but with uncertainty as well ) that there is a limit to reason's ability to build an accurate model of reality, and that that limit lies at uncertainty, and that, regardless of how much reason one is able to develop within one's life, one's model of reality will inherently be underscored by uncertainty.

    As such, as I said before, combined with a sense of curiosity, this uncertainty creates the possibility that a "spiritual" understanding of the world can be a perfectly reasonable thing.

  9. #89
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    What I will do is claim (likely accurately, but with uncertainty as well ) that there is a limit to reason's ability to build an accurate model of reality, and that that limit lies at uncertainty, and that, regardless of how much reason one is able to develop within one's life, one's model of reality will inherently be underscored by uncertainty.

    As such, as I said before, combined with a sense of curiosity, this uncertainty creates the possibility that a "spiritual" understanding of the world can be a perfectly reasonable thing.
    We accept uncertainty where data is inadequate. Inadequate data is the result of one of two possibilities:

    1. a lack of a testable theory to arrive at relevant data
    2. a lack of equipment necessary to test an appropriate theory

    Obviously, where any given theory is demonstrated to fail to account for the observed phenomenon, we arrive back at the first of the two situations, the hope, of course, being that a new theory will be more accurate. (I'm in concurrence with the thinker behind your namesake that we arrive at truth in degrees.)

    However, to ascribe to this uncertainty some sort of essence and to further label that essence "spirituality" is fallacious.

    Further, your tacit assertion that emotion is another means at arriving at factual conclusions is also fallacious, although you've subscribed to a regrettably widespread form of error. Reason alone can tell us anything real about the reality we inhabit; emotion is merely the manner in which we experience the workings of our individual beings.

    Are you prepared to demonstrate that "I feel A is true, therefore A is true" is a valid form of argument?
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  10. #90
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Any activity pursued is at the expense of those not; all things are at the expense of others in our finite experience of reality.

    In order for the development of one psychological function not to be to the exclusion of the development of other psychological functions it would be necessary that (1) functions are finite; i.e., that they could only be developed to a certain point, and no further,
    Personally I find this a baffling premise unless you're concieving of the mind as something like a kind of sealed, hydraulic system where a finite reserve of mental fluid is available to do the cognitive work, and the diversion to a different task within the mechanism would result in there being less available for the first one, thereby reducing the efficiency with which it could be performed. If you're not using such an approach, why would sucessesful use of one function negatively affect the others as you suggest?

    I can quite see why you would think that function development would have to be finite to avoid negatively impacting others IF it was demonstrable that function usage relied on deployment of the same limited psychological base material in an interconnected system. But what if use of different functions requires the activation of diferent parts of the brain, or experientially speaking, different, complementary cognitive systems? I find this far more likely, given that function usage encapuslates radically different modalities of thought, and that neural mapping associates emotion (by implication the F function) with the limbic system, and abstract reasoning (by implication the T function) with the separate neocortex. To me it seems more plausible that expanding function usage is a way of opening ourselves up to new and fuller possibilites, and that the development of one function only inhibits the development of a contrasting function in the very limited sense that when one is being used, the other is subdued. I don't see how this would negatively effect the subdued function, however, unless it could be demonstrated that not only had psychological energy been diverted to its use, but that this energy was not easily replacable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    (2) any function could be developed to such a point within less than the lifetime of the average human being, so as to facilitate developing multiple functions fully within one lifetime.
    How on earth do you propose to define "full" development of a cognitive function, except with reference to your previous statement, which requires acceptance of your initial premises. I certainly don't share them from what I'm seeing so far. To me the development is of necessity continuous and imperfect, but as I don't believe that the development of one is likely to have a negative impact on the others, as I've just explained, I don't see why this should matter...
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

Similar Threads

  1. Si doms, what are your thoughts on God?
    By Snuggletron in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 01:45 PM
  2. [NT] NTs what are your thoughts on this image?
    By SUPER in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 01:09 AM
  3. NFs what are your thoughts on this image?
    By SUPER in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 12:55 PM
  4. [SJ] SJs, what are your thoughts on the other types?
    By Dali in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 05:29 PM
  5. Has anyone heard of Global Dimming and if so what are your thoughts on it??
    By ladypinkington in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 06:13 AM

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