User Tag List

View Poll Results: As an NT, do you believe in the existence of God/gods?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am an INTP and I believe in a supernatural god of some kind.

    4 8.89%
  • I am an ENTP and I believe in a supernatural god of some kind.

    4 8.89%
  • I am an INTJ and I believe in a supernatural god of some kind.

    1 2.22%
  • I am an ENTJ and I believe in a supernatural god of some kind.

    2 4.44%
  • I am an INTP and I am an agnostic.

    4 8.89%
  • I am an ENTP and I am an agnostic.

    4 8.89%
  • I am an INTJ and I am an agnostic.

    1 2.22%
  • I am an ENTJ and I am an agnostic.

    3 6.67%
  • I am an INTP and I am an atheist.

    11 24.44%
  • I am an ENTP and I am an atheist.

    4 8.89%
  • I am an INTJ and I am an atheist.

    5 11.11%
  • I am an ENTJ and I am an atheist.

    2 4.44%
  • I've never thought about this, and would not classify myself as any of the above.

    0 0%
First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    ^ I'm not being evasive, I simply have nothing in my head to weigh in on. Russell's Teapot only works if you buy into the commonly marketed conception of god. I already said that that doesn't work for me. If, however, you take into account all the different accounts of a god or gods that have been offered up by other cultures since the beginning of recorded history, you're dead in the water. Is it the perfection of the universe? the universe in it's entirety? "the source" of everything? The point is I have no idea what anyone is even talking about when they use the term "god". I cannot tell you I don't believe in something that I can't even get my head around. You can use all the goofy mythological references you like, it doesn't change the fact that "god" is semantically opaque...and I feel more comfortable admitting that I don't know what we're talking about when we use the term than saying it, whatever "it" is, doesn't exist. The naive, Phil 100, arguments against the existence of the Western, biblical god hold absolutely no sway with me.

  2. #22
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Ugh. I am annoyed at the terms atheist and agnostic. Specifically how it's been warped. Atheist should (in my biased opnion) mean "without belief in a deity". A - non, theist - belief in god. It's been warped to "belief in the nonexistence of god" or whatever, which is not my belief. Furthermore, agnostic is basically an addition to (a)theist. A - non, gnostic - knowledge. So agnostic basically says that you can never know 100% for sure. So you could have an agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist, or non agnostic versions of both. Of course, this problem is why the terms strong and weak atheist were invented. But really, I've never seen or heard of anybody who held the strong atheist position.

    </rant about pet peeve of mine>
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmileyMan View Post
    Do you agree that it technically does according to the 2nd. definition, 2nd. quote in my last post?
    Only if we include the caveat that we're talking about "narrow" atheism. Otherwise, no. I don't believe in the Abrahamic god that doles out punishment in the form of plagues, floods, and pestilence. Other possibilities are still open, however.

  4. #24
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    Agnosticism is another skeptical thesis. Like almost all skeptical theses, it naively and incorrectly assumes that each of the claims we are allowed to pick from are equally likely.

    ...

    So it's really facile and evasive to say that active disbelief in any god is unwarranted. There is more evidence for the claim that they have been invented than there is for the claim that we cannot decide whether they exist or not.
    Please, with all due respect, get over yourself.

    Calling someone naive, incorrect, facile or evasive does not prove or disprove agnosticism, or theism for that matter. The models you presented are not, in fact, what I have a hard time believing/disbelieving.

    Your assumption is that all agnostics have one argument or one thesis.

    The theories that man has presented - in the form of stories and/or mythology - is not what leads to a general unknowing. My unknowing stems from the fact that we do not know how this earth, galaxy or universe was formed. A+gnosis = without knowledge. This is what I am - agnostic.

  5. #25
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    So far, I'm the only INTP theist to respond. (Though the new gal with the flaming sword avatar might weigh in later). And there are four INTJ atheists, but no INTJ Theists.

    When I was 19, I was an atheist, and that was when I discovered MBTI. I took a free test or two, and got INTJ each time.

    I wonder if there's a connection between INTJ thought patterns/epistemic norms and atheist metaphysics. I'm thinking there is, but I've not the time to go into detail as to why.

  6. #26
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    I'm agnostic because I don't care whether there's a god or not. Atheism doesn't work for me because it's just another unsubstantiated belief. Neither the belief in a god nor the belief that there is no god makes any sense to me. The word 'god' is wholly devoid of semantic content for me. The only thing that comes to mind at all when I hear the word 'god' is a picture of an old hippie wearing a toga in need of a trip to the barber... and he doesn't seem terribly god-like.
    You may be an apatheist!
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  7. #27
    Senior Member Aleph-One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    ^ I'm not being evasive, I simply have nothing in my head to weigh in on. Russell's Teapot only works if you buy into the commonly marketed conception of god. I already said that that doesn't work for me. If, however, you take into account all the different accounts of a god or gods that have been offered up by other cultures since the beginning of recorded history, you're dead in the water. Is it the perfection of the universe? the universe in it's entirety? "the source" of everything? The point is I have no idea what anyone is even talking about when they use the term "god". I cannot tell you I don't believe in something that I can't even get my head around. You can use all the goofy mythological references you like, it doesn't change the fact that "god" is semantically opaque...and I feel more comfortable admitting that I don't know what we're talking about when we use the term than saying it, whatever "it" is, doesn't exist. The naive, Phil 100, arguments against the existence of the Western, biblical god hold absolutely no sway with me.
    Taking into account all of the different accounts of god gives us a list of specific deities to refute. I fail to see how this is killing my case: I said that we can argue against specific deities, and your pointing out that there is a list of specific gods does nothing but undermine your claim that god is semantically opaque. We take the interventionist deities of mythology in stride, and can refute them on a case-by-case basis because they are specific claims, and usually claims which are suspiciously self-serving declarations of racial entitlement by divine mandate.

    If they are non-specific notions of god we are arguing against, then Russell's teapot works especially well. When a deity is introduced in a debate which is not a part of an interventionist mythology, then it is introduced as a concept designed to pathologically evade the kinds of tactics which were offered as a refutation of the specific deities. Russell's teapot is a demonstration that we are under no obligation to plead agnosticism about the truth of pathologically evasive concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    My unknowing stems from the fact that we do not know how this earth, galaxy or universe was formed.
    If we were genuinely ignorant of the processes which formed these things, it would still not appropriate to entertain every conjecture about their formation equally. But, as it happens, we do actually know how they formed especially in the case of galaxies and the earth. And I tend to get slightly sensitive about it when someone who makes an argument from ignorance (which is the most supremely arrogant fallacy of all - "I don't know this personally, so it must be must be unknowable because I'm so smart and would have figured it out otherwise") tells me to get over myself. That's the pot calling the porcelain china black.
    Aleph-One, you look like the kind of person who would spend his spare time building a giant robot to hold the government for ransom. -Some Guy on the Internet

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    ^ The point is there is no fixed list. Various cultures have postulated, and continue to postulate, vastly different notions of what "god" consists in. Some of them seem more attractive than others, but I'll never know if any of them are actually "true". There is no evasion involved, it's simply a matter of conceding ignorance, something we know western analytic philosophers have a great dealing of doing even when they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

    I'm not talking about non-specific notions, the people that hold the beliefs I referenced have something very specific in mind. I just don't have epistemic access to it. Again, you can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but you will never know whether you're correct. I don't even need to bother taking the gods on a case-by-case basis, because the list much longer than anything I could get through even over many lifetimes, and it continues to grow. Even more importantly, some one thing on that list might actually be a correct account, but because it's supernatural (beyond the natural world) none of us will ever know.

    If you feel more comfortable believing that you know there is no god, more power to you. I'll go on believing I'm as clueless about this matter as I really am. Remember our lord and savior, Socrates. The truly wise know they don't know.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    You may be an apatheist!

    You may be right!

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post


    If we were genuinely ignorant of the processes which formed these things, it would still not appropriate to entertain every conjecture about their formation equally. But, as it happens, we do actually know how they formed especially in the case of galaxies and the earth. And I tend to get slightly sensitive about it when someone who makes an argument from ignorance (which is the most supremely arrogant fallacy of all - "I don't know this personally, so it must be must be unknowable because I'm so smart and would have figured it out otherwise") tells me to get over myself. That's the pot calling the porcelain china black.

    Now you're just abusing concepts. Arguments from ignorance are not positions of agnosticism. Saying one does not know something is not the same thing as saying a thing cannot ever be known by anyone. Agnosticism is about recognizing one's own limitations, something you appear to be having some difficulty doing. We are absent of knowledge, and therefore cannot decide one way or the other. Clearly, people like you think you have knowledge.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI type and belief in god
    By TSDesigner in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 385
    Last Post: 12-23-2015, 12:39 PM
  2. [NT] NT's and Taste in Comedy
    By Didums in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 02:25 AM
  3. Militant Belief in Health Food and Alternative Medicine
    By heart in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 12:09 AM
  4. [NT] NT's and fluffy clouds :o)
    By labyrinthine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 12:18 PM
  5. RSS and Wiki in plain language
    By rivercrow in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 10:54 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