User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 141

Thread: INTP and GOD

  1. #101
    @.~*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 CJ99 View Post
    I wouldn't worry about loosing your faith to much though. I mean the same thing happened with santa didn't it? And you lived through that!
    I think what annoys me about comparisons like this is that the context, purpose, relevance, and depth of believing in Santa has nothing really to do with someone wrestling with questions over the meaning of life and how the spiritual might intersect it.

    Even from a rational POV, it's still sort of an unnuanced comparison to make.
    "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

  2. #102
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    You seem to have missed my point. Here's what it comes down to: you're calling an x a y. You're using the word "dragon" the way most people use the word "dinosaur".
    Yes I understand what you are saying. You are saying the words "dragon" and "dinosaur" mean two totally different things. This is true from our modern perspective where our modern definition of dragon is influenced by Hollywood and fantasy literature.

    But what I am saying is consider where the ideas of "dragon" and "dinosaur" came from. If a person living 500+ years ago discovered a skeleton of a T-Rex, then what would they call it? They would call it a dragon. If a modern person were looking at the same skeleton they would call it a dinosaur. In this sense we are not talking about two different things. We are simply using two different words to describe the exact same thing.

    I am not trying to redefine the word "dragon". Instead I'm trying to give context to where the idea of a dragon came from in the first place. Earlier in this thread the question came up concerning what reason a person would have to believe in dragons. When you consider that there are sketelons of giant reptiles buried in the ground, then there is actually a pretty good reason why a person might believe in dragons. Of course no modern person admits to believing in dragons. We call these skeletons "dinosaurs" instead. On the other hand if you were describe a dinosaur to a person from an ancient time, then what would he call it? He would call it a dragon. To the ancient person there is no difference. That is because the ancient idea of a dragon is not exactly the same as our modern one.

    And of course the irony of this whole discussion is that it mirrors a common debate that people might have about religion. One person might say "x and y are totally different". Another person might say "no x and y are really the same thing". It is more a matter of perspective than anything else.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #103
    @.~*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 The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    But what I am saying is consider where the ideas of "dragon" and "dinosaur" came from. If a person living 500+ years ago discovered a skeleton of a T-Rex, then what would they call it? They would call it a dragon. If a modern person were looking at the same skeleton they would call it a dinosaur. In this sense we are not talking about two different things. We are simply using two different words to describe the exact same thing.

    I am not trying to redefine the word "dragon". Instead I'm trying to give context to where the idea of a dragon came from in the first place.
    It seems like a plausible idea; and yes, I note and agree with what you're saying here. It seems likely.

    The problem with this style thinking, however, is simply there is no way to verify it. Offering it as a possibility to consider is about as far as it goes.
    "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

  4. #104
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It seems like a plausible idea; and yes, I note and agree with what you're saying here. It seems likely.

    The problem with this style thinking, however, is simply there is no way to verify it. Offering it as a possibility to consider is about as far as it goes.
    Well I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "verify". From what I've seen various groups use different criteria to verify something (even if you are referring to a strictly academic setting). For example, if I were trying to convince a group of anthropologists then I would compile stories about dragons and then compare them to various fossils. I would also compile any accounts of ancients finding fossils that I could. Basically compile all of the data available and make my case. I think I could provide a convincing enough case to them.

    If on the other hand I were to convince a group of paleontologists...well I wouldn't. They've already chosen their word, and they don't give a damn about ancient peoples. And of course if I were to convince some other sort of person, then I'd use a different approach. Because there are different criteria for what counts as "verification" depending on the context.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8sx
    Socionics
    ENTJ
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by refreshe123d View Post
    I been making a lot of thread lately, sorry if I annoy you but I like hearing feedbacks.

    How well do INTP deal with god? My parents both believe in god so I also believed in god growing up but as I get older it's starting to fade away. My parents are worried about me and religion is stressing me out.
    I agree with other posters that MBTI doesn't have much affect on what you think or how you feel about God. I would say that it does have an affect on how you find your conclusion. I have been surprised by how many INTPs I meet the church I attend. Our teaching pastor is an INTP, and one of the best (if not the best) teachers I've ever heard. Another member is a philosophy professor at a local community college, another is a friend of mine who is getting his degree in philosophy and going to seminary, and another is a genius who never leaves his room. I'm sure for as many people you find like them, you will find just as many non-believing INTPs.

  6. #106
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    I think type has less to do with what you believe and more to do with how you came to the conclusion. I'd think an INTP would seem prone to mapping things out, becoming perplexed if things don't fit, then reworking things to make more sense with little guilt at the notion of doing so.

    My annoyance is when people who feel they have things worked out for them start to claim that they know these things for sure. Ie. "I know God exists". This feels abrasive to me because it treats the assertion as a fact which should apply to everyone rather than a personal observation.

  7. #107
    @.~*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 The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Well I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "verify". From what I've seen various groups use different criteria to verify something (even if you are referring to a strictly academic setting). For example, if I were trying to convince a group of anthropologists then I would compile stories about dragons and then compare them to various fossils. I would also compile any accounts of ancients finding fossils that I could. Basically compile all of the data available and make my case. I think I could provide a convincing enough case to them.
    Okay... and I agree, that would be one way to go about it; but ARE there any such narratives?

    This is sort of the place where your arguments always lose me. You seem to make a lot of these "intuitive" cases and suggest some decent ideas, and can even suggest how to do a check on them... but usually the sort of checks that are proposed don't exist (as far as I can tell).

    How many narratives do we actually have of people in the time brackets you describe, where someone found a skeleton and is writing about it? You're still just assuming such narratives exist to verify your point; then assuming your point is correct; etc.

    The problem for me is just that it all remains speculative, one can't even really usually research the material underlying the speculation. Everything's a case of purely inductive logic.

    I'm more an inductive thinker than not, but at some spot I need a hard line to tether the balloon to the earth. So here, the inductive case seems to be enough to convince you to accept this as true; for me, I would like to believe you but need something more than an inductive case.
    "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

  8. #108
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Okay... and I agree, that would be one way to go about it; but ARE there any such narratives?

    This is sort of the place where your arguments always lose me. You seem to make a lot of these "intuitive" cases and suggest some decent ideas, and can even suggest how to do a check on them... but usually the sort of checks that are proposed don't exist (as far as I can tell).

    How many narratives do we actually have of people in the time brackets you describe, where someone found a skeleton and is writing about it? You're still just assuming such narratives exist to verify your point; then assuming your point is correct; etc.

    The problem for me is just that it all remains speculative, one can't even really usually research the material underlying the speculation. Everything's a case of purely inductive logic.

    I'm more an inductive thinker than not, but at some spot I need a hard line to tether the balloon to the earth. So here, the inductive case seems to be enough to convince you to accept this as true; for me, I would like to believe you but need something more than an inductive case.
    Well I haven't researched thoroughly enough to write a formal paper about it. Generally if I have a question about something I look into it enough until I've satisfied my own curiosity. When I am researching something I very rarely am thinking about investigating it in such a way to convince other people I am right (unless I am being paid to do so).

    (And to redirect...) my original point was not to prove something concrete about dragons and dinosaurs anyway. It was more of an analogy toward the actual topic of this thread. Specifically I'm saying that instead of judging something based on our initial own perspective it's more enlightening to discover the perspective of others. Sometimes a subject that appears totally cut and dry at first can seem quite different when we examine it under another perspective. So I was trying to insert another perspective about dragons as an analogy.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #109
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    I do believe in God. Brought up that way I suppose. Not sure how one religion can be right and the other wrong though.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  10. #110
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    My annoyance is when people who feel they have things worked out for them start to claim that they know these things for sure. Ie. "I know God exists". This feels abrasive to me because it treats the assertion as a fact which should apply to everyone rather than a personal observation.
    I'm also annoyed by the inaccuracy but also in the opposite case of "I know God doesn't exist." Though I doubt it's something we can prevent; Humans are prone to think in absolutes.
    A search for truth is a search for a greedy perspective.

    Nah, that's not truth. That's just your bullshit ideas of truth. Truth is always inclusive. If it's not inclusive, then toughen it up and try harder.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] INTP and Escapism
    By The Unknown Essence in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 05:01 PM
  2. [INTP] The INTP and Feelings
    By reason in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 11:02 AM
  3. [INTP] INTPs and Big Crowds/Concerts
    By intpgirl in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:33 PM
  4. [INTP] INTPs and Grammar
    By MerkW in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 07:06 AM
  5. [INTP] INTPs and life
    By JonJT in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 08:53 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