User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 176

  1. #41
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.

  2. #42
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.


    I am looking at this thread from the start and I don't understand why did you expect that you will get different result ? I mean you came into the place full of NTs which are mostly unreligious/unspiritual looking for "apperciation" and now you are hurt. (at least you sould like that). Plus you have accused them that they can't see past the logic.



    However this does not mean that I agree with your claims. On the contrary I am quite skeptical about your claims.

  3. #43
    Member songofcalamity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    76

    Default

    I am intrigued.

    Do you mind discussing/explaining your view more in depth?

  4. #44
    Senior Member SecantSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.
    hit an INTP nerve? no, i think you hit an NT nerve. we like logic, not idiocy. go take this to the religious forum, why don't you? it doesn't belong here.
    When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it.
    - Bernard Bailey
    It is bad luck to be superstitious.
    - Andrew W. Mathis

    sp/sx/so

  5. #45
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwar View Post
    ...evolution has done nothing but become more validated as new evidence and methods of analysis have come about. DNA sequencing being a major one...
    Actually, DNA has created some problems for orthodox darwinism. From what I read these days, the scientific orthodoxy hasn't moved past their own bias to step back and rethink the problems within darwinism.

    That includes the biological sciences as well as the social sciences. I think the only the physical sciences and mathematics has maintained much distance from this bias.

  6. #46
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    From what I read these days...
    Can you list some of these things you read so that it's clearer what your sources are?

    Both sides sort of make these sweeping claims, and there's no way to judge the veracity of those claims if we have no idea what sources are being used.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I don't mean to be a jerk here... but I don't think you've done a thorough review of the topic (I spent 7-8 years as a molecular biologist). "Junk DNA" is a highly overgeneralized (and inaccurate) term - an oversimplified "sound bite" explanation for something that has long been suspected to be complex. Basically, the real conclusion of scientists back in the day was more like "Hmm, there's a lot of DNA that doesn't seem to serve as a point of origination for the information that directly leads to protein translation - I wonder what it is for, or if it's for anything at all." It's not really the same topic, but there is a *load* of evidence that DNA results support evolution. It's not even a question among the *overwhelming* majority of people knowledgeable about the field.
    There does seem to me to be a breakdown in this culture between experts in their field and laypeople, where those who actually work with the science/field of study every day have a certain collection of truth that for whatever reason is not filtering down to the general populace. So the guy on the street thinks one thing is common sense, whereas if you just went to school for a few years in that field, you'd realize a lot of the public sense of things makes no sense at all. The public is extremely resistant to be informed.

    I remember a lot of conservatives dissing Obama last year during the election because he's an intellectual. Where did it ever get to the point that being misinformed and not learning was prefered over being able to absorb knowledge and take many factors into account? Instead it seemed pretty clear that the choice of politician for the previous eight was based on "who belives similarly to me and who would I like to hang out at the bar with?" and even the choice of VP candidate was based on "who seems spunky/likable" rather than "who seems informed/knowledgable". Where did actually being studious and intelligent in the broad sense, being able to examine things from a non-predetermined POV, earn a bad rap?

    I don't really mean to make this into a political discussion, I bring it up because it has a bearing on all this stuff. I'm smart and open-minded as a person, but I grew up in a religious culture where I was trained in Genesis Record and eventually Intelligent Design first and taught to be skeptical of scientists, and defended such things (and was taught that scientists were biased/faulty), but when I finally started reading stuff outside that particular subculture, I realized things were nearly not that way at all and there was a lot of reason for the biological and scientific claims being made.

    You can always argue that God (I mean, an "intelligent designer") specifically designed things to look like evolution is the driving force in speciation, but this is inherently unfalsifiable - there's no way to disprove the *possibility* that this happened... but scientifically, there's no data to support the idea either. That's more a matter of choosing to believe in a religious explanation or not. What *is* important when considering the facts is that "We don't know (yet)" does not equate to "It must have been God" (I mean, an "intelligent designer").
    That is one of the biggest issues with ID, imo.

    And really, ID is not purposed to be a scienfitic explanation of anything, it really was raised, tailored, and cultured as a support leg to prop up people's religious beliefs. That is its purpose, and it's most clearly shown by the driving need to use it to promote a particular outcome rather than to explore possibilities. As you say (and as the Republican judge in Dover scathingly noted in his decision against the school board that pushed for ID to be included in the high school science curriculum, making national news a few years ago), ID is not falsifiable (meaning it's "not science") and is simply being used by religious forces to get their foot in the door under the guise of science. There is simply no way to test and see if this "Intelligent Designer" exists... and what exactly its nature would be... and usually when it gets brought up in church, no one cares to test for that anyway... its goal is to allow people to believe whatever they were already believing, without having to feel anxiety or needing to feel their faith is threatened by any sort of evidence.

    I was all for ID and supported it when it came out in the mid/late 90's, but the more I was forced to reevaluate my faith at that time, the more I had to acknowledge what was going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    Perhaps, predictably, there exists a sense of threat among people in the different stages of religious development. Mostly we are threatened by people in the stages above us. Although they often adopt the pretense of being "cool cats" who have it "all together," underneath their exteriors Stage I people are threatened by just about everything and everyone. Stage II people are not threatened by Stage I people, the "sinners." They are commanded to love sinners, but they are very threatened by the individualists and skeptics of Stage III, and even more by the mystics of Stage IV, who seem to believe in the same sorts of things they do but believe in them with a freedom they find absolutely terrifying. Stage III people, on the other hand, are neither threatened by Stage I people nor by Stage II people (whom they simply regard as superstitious), but are cowed by Stage IV people, who seem to be scientific minded like themselves and know how to write good footnotes, yet somehow still believe in this crazy God business.

    I hope you intps arn't mistaking me for a stage 2 superstitious dogmatic religion freak. No it couldn't be, it wouldn't bother you so much.
    Heh, I'm well acquainted with Peck's work, I've got all his books. Yes, basically it goes from non-believer to rigid/structured believer (because the structure is providing a valid role), then to challenger of the structure (agnostic/black sheep) and then finally to the mystic. It's sort of ironic that the characteristics of each stage do seem to mesh to some degree with Keirsey's four MBTI archetypes, isn't it? But it doesn't mean the stages are true, it's just an idea with SOME connection to data... I just don't know if we can generalize religious belief so cleanly.

    (Peck was an INTJ, by his own commentary, btw. And while I admire him deeply as a thinker -- his "People of the Lie" resonates with me 15 years after I read it -- he was also a habitual smoker/drinker and an adulterer, impetuous and arrogant, again by his own admission, which is why his long-suffering wife finally left him within the few years before his death. While I can judge his thoughts about religion/faith on their own merits, it still leaves me wondering where his ideas led him or how effective such beliefs were for him.)

    Actually there are other options here besides the four. For example, there is the psuedo-mystic, who says and thinks lots of mystical sounding things and is misunderstood, but rather than having deeper insight, they're actually totally off the wall. How do we determine this, especially if the mystic is resistant to challenge? In situations like this, Peck's order breaks down. It's really just meant to suggest a potential pathway for natural spiritual development in order that people learn to accept and not immediately dismiss as "anti-religious" those who do not follow the textbook legalistic definition of spirituality promoted by particular parts of the culture... and I think this was probably something relevant to Peck, who felt he had some spiritual understanding/insight but felt dismissed by the more conventionally religious.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #47
    The Architect Alwar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Actually, DNA has created some problems for orthodox darwinism. From what I read these days, the scientific orthodoxy hasn't moved past their own bias to step back and rethink the problems within darwinism.

    That includes the biological sciences as well as the social sciences. I think the only the physical sciences and mathematics has maintained much distance from this bias.
    I got it from a testimony on a documentary about that Virginia school board that was trying to impose "intelligent design" (lol) into the curriculum. The case went to the supreme court and they had a biologist on there who testified that DNA could have disproven Darwin's theory but ended up making it stronger.

    Can't remember the name of the town, but it was PBS who produced the doc. One of Darwin's descendants was there covering the trial and wrote a book about it afterwards, the whole thing is hilarious.

    Yeah nothing tops the math, physics, engineering etc. Many go into them just so they don't have to deal with political nonsense.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Ok it's official we have decided to take away your NT pass.

    Unless you admit to being an ENTP and just doing this for fun.

    (ISTJ would more suit you)
    Join my gamma group on facebook:
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit....id=63943661343
    Thats if you are either ENTJ, ISFJ, ESFP or INTP

  9. #49
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am looking at this thread from the start and I don't understand why did you expect that you will get different result ? I mean you came into the place full of NTs which are mostly unreligious/unspiritual looking for "apperciation" and now you are hurt. (at least you sould like that). Plus you have accused them that they can't see past the logic.



    However this does not mean that I agree with your claims. On the contrary I am quite skeptical about your claims.
    don't worry my feelings didn't get hurt, you seem to think I expected a different result? But I didn't it was quite predicatble. Your response is quite predictable, because I used to think exactly like this.

  10. #50
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Can you list some of these things you read so that it's clearer what your sources are?

    Both sides sort of make these sweeping claims, and there's no way to judge the veracity of those claims if we have no idea what sources are being used.



    There does seem to me to be a breakdown in this culture between experts in their field and laypeople, where those who actually work with the science/field of study every day have a certain collection of truth that for whatever reason is not filtering down to the general populace. So the guy on the street thinks one thing is common sense, whereas if you just went to school for a few years in that field, you'd realize a lot of the public sense of things makes no sense at all. The public is extremely resistant to be informed.

    I remember a lot of conservatives dissing Obama last year during the election because he's an intellectual. Where did it ever get to the point that being misinformed and not learning was prefered over being able to absorb knowledge and take many factors into account? Instead it seemed pretty clear that the choice of politician for the previous eight was based on "who belives similarly to me and who would I like to hang out at the bar with?" and even the choice of VP candidate was based on "who seems spunky/likable" rather than "who seems informed/knowledgable". Where did actually being studious and intelligent in the broad sense, being able to examine things from a non-predetermined POV, earn a bad rap?

    I don't really mean to make this into a political discussion, I bring it up because it has a bearing on all this stuff. I'm smart and open-minded as a person, but I grew up in a religious culture where I was trained in Genesis Record and eventually Intelligent Design first and taught to be skeptical of scientists, and defended such things (and was taught that scientists were biased/faulty), but when I finally started reading stuff outside that particular subculture, I realized things were nearly not that way at all and there was a lot of reason for the biological and scientific claims being made.



    That is one of the biggest issues with ID, imo.

    And really, ID is not purposed to be a scienfitic explanation of anything, it really was raised, tailored, and cultured as a support leg to prop up people's religious beliefs. That is its purpose, and it's most clearly shown by the driving need to use it to promote a particular outcome rather than to explore possibilities. As you say (and as the Republican judge in Dover scathingly noted in his decision against the school board that pushed for ID to be included in the high school science curriculum, making national news a few years ago), ID is not falsifiable (meaning it's "not science") and is simply being used by religious forces to get their foot in the door under the guise of science. There is simply no way to test and see if this "Intelligent Designer" exists... and what exactly its nature would be... and usually when it gets brought up in church, no one cares to test for that anyway... its goal is to allow people to believe whatever they were already believing, without having to feel anxiety or needing to feel their faith is threatened by any sort of evidence.

    I was all for ID and supported it when it came out in the mid/late 90's, but the more I was forced to reevaluate my faith at that time, the more I had to acknowledge what was going on.



    Heh, I'm well acquainted with Peck's work, I've got all his books. Yes, basically it goes from non-believer to rigid/structured believer (because the structure is providing a valid role), then to challenger of the structure (agnostic/black sheep) and then finally to the mystic. It's sort of ironic that the characteristics of each stage do seem to mesh to some degree with Keirsey's four MBTI archetypes, isn't it? But it doesn't mean the stages are true, it's just an idea with SOME connection to data... I just don't know if we can generalize religious belief so cleanly.

    (Peck was an INTJ, by his own commentary, btw. And while I admire him deeply as a thinker -- his "People of the Lie" resonates with me 15 years after I read it -- he was also a habitual smoker/drinker and an adulterer, impetuous and arrogant, again by his own admission, which is why his long-suffering wife finally left him within the few years before his death. While I can judge his thoughts about religion/faith on their own merits, it still leaves me wondering where his ideas led him or how effective such beliefs were for him.)

    Actually there are other options here besides the four. For example, there is the psuedo-mystic, who says and thinks lots of mystical sounding things and is misunderstood, but rather than having deeper insight, they're actually totally off the wall. How do we determine this, especially if the mystic is resistant to challenge? In situations like this, Peck's order breaks down. It's really just meant to suggest a potential pathway for natural spiritual development in order that people learn to accept and not immediately dismiss as "anti-religious" those who do not follow the textbook legalistic definition of spirituality promoted by particular parts of the culture... and I think this was probably something relevant to Peck, who felt he had some spiritual understanding/insight but felt dismissed by the more conventionally religious.
    I already mentioned the backsliding and if they read the entire page I posted it explains the inbetweens, it's obvious that some people just skimmed over the webpage and didn't really absorb the entirety of it.

Similar Threads

  1. Sensing/iNtuiting Game: Perceiving Differences
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. RIAA and investigatory processes
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Intuitive memory...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 08:43 PM
  5. Do Sensors read faster than iNtuitives?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 03:18 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