User Tag List

View Poll Results: NFs, would you marry an atheist?

Voters
121. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO - I'm an INFJ

    10 8.26%
  • NO - I'm an ENFJ

    4 3.31%
  • NO - I'm an INFP

    9 7.44%
  • NO - I'm an ENFP

    9 7.44%
  • YES - I'm an INFJ

    27 22.31%
  • YES - I'm an ENFJ

    7 5.79%
  • YES - I'm an INFP

    32 26.45%
  • YES - I'm an ENFP

    23 19.01%
First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 137

  1. #91
    Junior Member Alchemilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    22

    Default

    I'm also an INFJ atheist. You could call me spiritual, but I am in no way a supernaturalist.

    Atheist means "non-theist" in the same way asymmetrical means "non-symmetrical." It's not really a label that tells you what the atheist does believe in, just what they don't believe in. For example, some atheists do believe in "something else" such as life after death or reiki or The Secret or whatever. Other atheists (like me), not so much.

    In my experience an atheist worldview can be rich, meaningful and poetic. It might seem counter intuitive, but I have felt so much more spiritual since embracing naturalistic atheism. Each to their own!

  2. #92
    Member Caesar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Why is the NT thread asking about theists and the NF thread asking about atheists? Is this some sort of typecasting? Because I meet atheists and theists at the same rate for both NFs and NTs.
    "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." - Oscar Wilde

  3. #93
    Señora Member Elfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    269

    Default

    Why not? I'm an atheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alchemilla View Post
    I'm also an INFJ atheist. You could call me spiritual, but I am in no way a supernaturalist.

    Atheist means "non-theist" in the same way asymmetrical means "non-symmetrical." It's not really a label that tells you what the atheist does believe in, just what they don't believe in. For example, some atheists do believe in "something else" such as life after death or reiki or The Secret or whatever. Other atheists (like me), not so much.

    In my experience an atheist worldview can be rich, meaningful and poetic. It might seem counter intuitive, but I have felt so much more spiritual since embracing naturalistic atheism. Each to their own!
    I like so much the way you put it! Life can be seen in a meaningful and beautiful way, it doesn't need a religion to be wonderful... And, strangely, I feel very spiritual that way...

  4. #94
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caesar View Post
    Why is the NT thread asking about theists and the NF thread asking about atheists? Is this some sort of typecasting? Because I meet atheists and theists at the same rate for both NFs and NTs.
    well, statistically speaking, ENFJs are the most likely to believe in a higher spiritual power and INTJs are the least likely, followed I believe by INTPs and ENTJs.

  5. #95
    the Dark Prophet of Kualu
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    RAD
    Posts
    860

    Default

    An Atheist must be someone that strictly believes in the assumption that there is no god.
    Whether you attach another label after or before it is up to you but since theology is the study of god - literally translated from greek. Then Theist must be someone who believes in the script of god, in one way or another and an Atheist must be someone who denies and explicitly disbelieves in godly scriptures.

    At least, that is my reasoning. If it is a balanced and mature human being then whether or not being an Atheist or Theist would matter much as long as there's some sort of common ground upon which to share. I have my doubts about dating a theist or atheist but that is because I've met such fanatical members of either faction rather than well adjusted companions.

  6. #96
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gtzk View Post
    An Atheist must be someone that strictly believes in the assumption that there is no god.
    This is simply not true. One can be an atheist, and strictly believe that there is no god, or an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any god, but does not presume that the existence of a god is impossible. Some atheists have much more faith in their beliefs than other atheists, some are very sure, some less sure. But an atheist does not have to assume that the existence of a god is impossible.

  7. #97
    the Dark Prophet of Kualu
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    RAD
    Posts
    860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    This is simply not true. One can be an atheist, and strictly believe that there is no god, or an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in any god, but does not presume that the existence of a god is impossible. Some atheists have much more faith in their beliefs than other atheists, some are very sure, some less sure. But an atheist does not have to assume that the existence of a god is impossible.
    Which is why I added that you can add an additional label before or after being an atheist.

    Was my reasoning incorrect if such a rule was added? I find most definitions very black and white, as it should be or else why bother categorizing? There's sub-definitions and head titles and what-not to get around the semantics but that's still labels before or after the word.

    I feel you are missing my point, or I am missing yours. My scale is Atheist --------- Agnostic ------ Theist. There might be more words between, I bet there is but I am unaware of them at this time.



    I'm not saying that one definition should hold true forever. People change and definitions with them. We add more, remove some and edit ones that are still in use. The reason I tried to add my reasoning behind the explicit definition of an atheist is because I wanted there to be some context to fit it with. Not taken in simplicity and deny what that simple sentence spoke of for the reasoning that followed.


    EDIT: I don't run around and label people. They label themselves. When I hear of a label, I'll ask them what they mean by it and I'll ask how they act around it and the details and what not. I cannot tell them their definition is incorrect but after asking, I can engage in conversation if I use the definition they have explained to me. This was my reasoning behind Atheism. I wonder, what is yours? How does if differ?

  8. #98
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gtzk View Post
    Which is why I added that you can add an additional label before or after being an atheist.

    Was my reasoning incorrect if such a rule was added? I find most definitions very black and white, as it should be or else why bother categorizing? There's sub-definitions and head titles and what-not to get around the semantics but that's still labels before or after the word.

    I feel you are missing my point, or I am missing yours. My scale is Atheist --------- Agnostic ------ Theist. There might be more words between, I bet there is but I am unaware of them at this time.



    I'm not saying that one definition should hold true forever. People change and definitions with them. We add more, remove some and edit ones that are still in use. The reason I tried to add my reasoning behind the explicit definition of an atheist is because I wanted there to be some context to fit it with. Not taken in simplicity and deny what that simple sentence spoke of for the reasoning that followed.


    EDIT: I don't run around and label people. They label themselves. When I hear of a label, I'll ask them what they mean by it and I'll ask how they act around it and the details and what not. I cannot tell them their definition is incorrect but after asking, I can engage in conversation if I use the definition they have explained to me. This was my reasoning behind Atheism. I wonder, what is yours? How does if differ?
    I don't see the need for a scale of Atheist ----- agnostic ------ theist. Closer to 2 distinct islands, with a variety of flavors on each. For example, an implicit atheist certainly does not have to make a strict assertion that there is no god, yet he also absolutely cannot be labeled a theist, because the implicit atheist is absolutely "without god". There is no rejection, there is no faith, there is nothing special reinforcing the belief, because there is no belief. Neither is this individual necessarily agnostic, because the individual would not necessarily deem the truth unknowable.

  9. #99
    the Dark Prophet of Kualu
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    RAD
    Posts
    860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    I don't see the need for a scale of Atheist ----- agnostic ------ theist. Closer to 2 distinct islands, with a variety of flavors on each. For example, an implicit atheist certainly does not have to make a strict assertion that there is no god, yet he also absolutely cannot be labeled a theist, because the implicit atheist is absolutely "without god". There is no rejection, there is no faith, there is nothing special reinforcing the belief, because there is no belief. Neither is this individual necessarily agnostic, because the individual would not necessarily deem the truth unknowable.
    Ok. No scale.
    Even if there's plenty of thick beaks on one island with a clear variety even though all have very thick beaks and on the other island there's thin beaks with yet as many varieties as the earlier island; They are different and there is a system. Whether or not you make that system up at the spot, whether or not you combine many systems but there's still a system if we are going to apply human value systems. Whether these being rational or feeling. In one of these systems, I claim that there's a definition of atheism that is clear-cut disbelief. Mainly because human values require some sort of understanding. Whether for itself and/or others. Then there's Atheism strain B, which isn't clear-cut atheism but Lala-atheism.

    You are nitpicking instead of reading what I wrote. Or reading intentions where I haven't written them...

    Somehow, you are agreeing with me and yet not.


    I have met one other who tells me there is no belief. I cannot fathom to live without belief. I find will to be a kind of belief. Hope being a kind of belief. Facts reside on a certain aspect of belief. This is probably the one thing I dislike about myself for I feel belief and I cannot separate it from life and life. The intuitive leaps are belief. Patterns that aren't completely consistent at first sight but made consistent to find some sort of meaning, is belief. Me taking a glass of water and pouring it down my throat is part of my belief that I can do that. That is my trouble and that is why I cannot understand what you are speaking of. I am aware that it sounds silly. I can disprove myself rationally in text, or so I think, but I cannot create the insight for myself. It's not tangible, it's part of freedom. It's will of being. If I do not believe in myself then why continue? Then I have to either start believing in others or simply not acknowledge them. Can you understand this perspective? I cannot yours, yet. I'm most probably agnostic btw.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gtzk View Post
    Ok. No scale.
    Even if there's plenty of thick beaks on one island with a clear variety even though all have very thick beaks and on the other island there's thin beaks with yet as many varieties as the earlier island; They are different and there is a system. Whether or not you make that system up at the spot, whether or not you combine many systems but there's still a system if we are going to apply human value systems. Whether these being rational or feeling. In one of these systems, I claim that there's a definition of atheism that is clear-cut disbelief. Mainly because human values require some sort of understanding. Whether for itself and/or others. Then there's Atheism strain B, which isn't clear-cut atheism but Lala-atheism.

    You are nitpicking instead of reading what I wrote. Or reading intentions where I haven't written them...

    Somehow, you are agreeing with me and yet not.


    I have met one other who tells me there is no belief. I cannot fathom to live without belief. I find will to be a kind of belief. Hope being a kind of belief. Facts reside on a certain aspect of belief. This is probably the one thing I dislike about myself for I feel belief and I cannot separate it from life and life. The intuitive leaps are belief. Patterns that aren't completely consistent at first sight but made consistent to find some sort of meaning, is belief. Me taking a glass of water and pouring it down my throat is part of my belief that I can do that. That is my trouble and that is why I cannot understand what you are speaking of. I am aware that it sounds silly. I can disprove myself rationally in text, or so I think, but I cannot create the insight for myself. It's not tangible, it's part of freedom. It's will of being. If I do not believe in myself then why continue? Then I have to either start believing in others or simply not acknowledge them. Can you understand this perspective? I cannot yours, yet. I'm most probably agnostic btw.
    I understand, and I think you might be taking "no belief" too far in your assessment here. We can't have beliefs about something we don't or can't think about. There are people out there, whom I have never met, that will have beliefs about concepts I will never hear about. My "beliefs" about these concepts are implicitly absent. The easiest way I can explain it would be to pose a question. Does the absence of belief imply belief of absence? This is the difference between implicit atheism and explicit atheism. There are some who do not believe in god who would state "I do not believe in any god", and others who do not believe in any god, but couldn't say this, because they are detached from the concept and therefore unable to have a belief about god(s).

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs, would you marry a Theist?
    By EcK in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 07:43 PM
  2. [NF] NFs would you mind if I ask you something "personal" ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 09-30-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. Would you wear an elephant hat?
    By JustHer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-30-2009, 07:18 PM
  4. Would you be an immortal?
    By BerberElla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 07:57 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