User Tag List

First 9171819202129 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #181
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    You have every right to believe what you believe, Owl, and I have no interest in trying to convince you you're wrong (you might be right!), but in the context of 'NT' types I find your post interesting in that it's presented as a statement of fact rather than a point of view in a debate. Aren't NTs supposed to be into debate and opening their minds to other views? I'm a noob, so maybe I'm wrong about that...just wondering!
    There are many threads on this forum concerned with debating the nature and existence of God, and I've posted in some of them, but the OP didn't ask for points of view in a debate. (S)He asked for what NT's believed about God.

    Most persons aren't aware of what historic or philosophical theism affirm about God, so I took this opportunity to inform any interested persons of what these positions hold.

  2. #182
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KLessard View Post
    What do NTs think of God, and how do they relate to Him ?

    Is it possible for an NT to be interested in God ?
    In my personal experience, NTs tend to exhibit hostility or scepticism towards the notion of a deity, especially those of the theistic sort. This appears to be especially prevalent in members of my own type, something which I would attribute to the conjoining of a strong desire for autonomy and a highly critical mind; unfortunately, most contemporary apologies for a theistic deity (usually the Christian God) are rather poor, leading to the latter remaining unsatiated. However, it certainly is possible for an NT, and even an INTP, to be interested, and to believe in, God, as a cursory glance of the population will show you.

  3. #183
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    In my personal experience, NTs tend to exhibit hostility or scepticism towards the notion of a deity, especially those of the theistic sort. This appears to be especially prevalent in members of my own type, something which I would attribute to the conjoining of a strong desire for autonomy and a highly critical mind; unfortunately, most contemporary apologies for a theistic deity (usually the Christian God) are rather poor, leading to the latter remaining unsatiated. However, it certainly is possible for an NT, and even an INTP, to be interested, and to believe in, God, as a cursory glance of the population will show you.
    arg, please, stop using palatino police, it hurts my eeeyeesss
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  4. #184
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    If we're talking about life and the dependence of god on life, why would we base our opinion on the opinions of physicists or other experts in fields unrelated to the one we are talking about?

    ..."There are holes in theory A, so theory B is automatically correct."

    P.P.S. Define "Soft" / "Hard" science.
    1-I agree. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

    2-Mycroft read the same thing from my posts. No, I am not saying that. Though I am saying that there are holes in theory A.

    3-from wikipedia

    "Soft science is a colloquial term, often used for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly "scientific" however it is not based on reproducible experimental data, and/or a mathematical explanation of that data. The term is usually used as a contrast to hard science.[1]

    Within the natural sciences, research which depends upon conjecture (sometimes called hypothesis), qualitative analysis of data (compared to quantitative analysis), or uncertain experimental results is sometimes derided as soft science.[2] Examples are evolutionary psychology[3] or meteorology[4]. When soft science refers to a natural science, it is usually used pejoratively, mainly due to the term's association with social science, implying that a particular natural science topic described as "soft" does not belong to the field of natural science."

    It was a dig.

  5. #185
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    1-I agree. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
    You couldn't be wronger, It's only a metaphysical question if people didn't believe god created the univers and themselves, did do miracles, and exerce his will on the universe.
    if you intervene, you change the universe. Even observation has an effect on the observed thing.

    Science = the study of the natural world. from the latin scientia, meaning knowledge.

    Again and again, you show a weak understanding of science, logics, and mathematics.
    I'm not trying to insult anybody, just saying what I see.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  6. #186
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    You couldn't be wronger, It's only a metaphysical question if people didn't believe god created the univers and themselves, did do miracles, and exerce his will on the universe.
    if you intervene, you change the universe. Even observation has an effect on the observed thing.

    Science = the study of the natural world. from the latin scientia, meaning knowledge.

    Again and again, you show a weak understanding of science, logics, and mathematics.
    I'm not trying to insult anybody, just saying what I see.
    Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy."

    If you claim that science has proven that matter/life came about without a creator or designer, you've moved beyond science to metaphysics. You've made a "philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

    I'm not insulted, I am amused. To a large degree, I've been trying to make complex points by using simple analogies. I've also been a little sloppy in the way I framed my points. You have misinterpreted that as a weak understanding of "science, logics, and mathematics."

    To get into the nitty gritty of some aspects of microbiology that can't be explained by random mutations and natural selection would be very difficult. I am hoping that some will be curious enough to take the time to read the literature of the expert dissenters themselves.

    To take one more shot at the "coin flipping" "jumping to the moon" dialogue: darwinists mistakenly believe that you can get from simple forms of life (or building blocks of life) to complex forms of life through many little steps (random mutations - some beneficial, some detrimental) over long periods of time, with the process guided to favor the beneficial mutations through natural selection. The ID proponents* look at some of the necessary steps along the process and say, "hey, you can't get from A to B through random mutations and natural selection because the distance between these necessary steps is larger than the the amount of ground that can be covered by these steps."

    There are events that are mathematically impossible. If darwinism claims to explain something by an event that is mathematically impossible, that claim is false. In saying this I am not discarding all of darwin's theory. To clarify, aspects of darwinism follow the scientific method, and certain hypothesis have been tested/reproduced. The problem is that darwinism, as a theory, has made assertions that cannot be tested (yet those assertions have been taken as fact), and has made assertions that appear to be false.

    *(many of whom started out as darwinists, but changed their mind when they ran across problems with darwinism in their field of study)

  7. #187
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    I'm glad to be of service, but I would also warn against developing the mentality that you need to be an expert in every given field to have common sense and to be able to arrive at rational conclusions. This is the mentality the "no one can ever really know anything!" faction feeds off of.
    Oh, don't worry, I completely agree with this. The fact that I can't have a 100% informed conversation with, for example, an eminent biologist in no way takes away from my ability to recognize logic - flawed or not.

    2-Mycroft read the same thing from my posts. No, I am not saying that. Though I am saying that there are holes in theory A.
    Erudur, I am not trying to be confrontational but...what *are* you saying? Can you boil down your POV somehow and post it? Are you simply pointing out flaws in theory A (and if you are, OK, but are we being invited to come to conclusions or are you really, actually just pointing out flaws and nothing else? In which case, what does this have to do with belief/non-belief in God?)?

    I read the article you posted a few pages back - interesting and I enjoyed it but I'm not really seeing the connection to the theism conversation going on here. There are possible flaws in Darwinian theory as it's currently understood. OK, fine. So...what do you suggest we make of that? Or are you suggesting anything?

    Owl - thanks for replying.

  8. #188
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    yeah, the bible's vision of the world, cosmology, geology and so on obviously works.
    Especially when u know it's supposed to be written by the dude who created all of the forementionned things

    i'll go for the weak minded theme

    I know ppl usually go all 'i understand and respect religion' but as said previously in this post (i think) I dont.

    Respect isn't something a group, or a person is entitled to.
    It's about deserving, and I dont have much respect for those pathetic memes.

    ps: u dont BELIEVE in science, u see it works, and then if something doesnt fit, u correct it, in a quest to get closer and closer to a 1:1 interpretation of the universe. Using this approach in religion, u'd probably be left with 'take a deep breath and relax' as a way of life. (no i dont think the killings of the bible would 'work' in modern days)
    pss: no, trying to understand how things work is not BAD it's the reason why most of the things u have now DO work, but yeah, thank for reminding us that religions teach ppl not to think. Yeah, i can quote christian thinkers here.
    But hey, I always enjoy the zelot jargon.
    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    pss: U did also misread most of what I said intepreting it as simply angry ranting.
    You don't think that comes across as angry ranting?

  9. #189
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Erudur, I am not trying to be confrontational but...what *are* you saying?
    EcK kind of goaded me into joining the thread with his early stuff (some quoted above). The darwinism commentary was a reaction to EcK.

    I intentionally held back my own cosmology to keep it from being mixed into my debate with EcK. That mixture would just complicate the dialogue even more.

    My more complete answer to your question cannot be proven, so I don't want to give the impression that I think it can be. I'll give EcK (and/or Mycroft) some time to bounce off my latest posts if they want to and then share some of my own cosmology.

  10. #190
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    EcK kind of goaded me into joining the thread with his early stuff (some quoted above). The darwinism commentary was a reaction to EcK.

    I intentionally held back my own cosmology to keep it from being mixed into my debate with EcK.
    I'll give EcK (and/or Mycroft) some time to bounce off my latest posts if they want to and then share some of my own cosmology.
    he just secretly hates me
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 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