User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 141

Thread: INTP and GOD

  1. #111
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    There is nothing wrong with this definition other than he is trying to apply it to all Judeo-Christian theology which is too broad. This is the common definition held by Evangelicals and quite a few non-Evangelicals too, but you couldn't apply it to everyone with a Judeo-Christian background. If you were going to define God more for all Judeo-Christian theology then you'd need a more general definition like:

    "A single powerful entity responsible for the creation the universe."

    Either way I don't think believers see a problem with these traditional definitions like you are suggesting.
    If you believe that there is a higher being, and all is this being, you are a pantheist. If you believe that there is a higher being, but this higher being is not all, and that this higher being created the universe, you are a deist. If you believe that this being has a discernible personality, personal motives, etcetera, you are a theist. If you believe that this deity is as described in the Old Testament, you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If you believe that this God sent his Son or some manifestation of Himself to earth in Jesus Christ, you are a Christian.

    Christianity, as a subset of Theism, this a subset of Deism which is in turn a subset of Pantheism, propounds very specific beliefs to the exclusion of others. This is uncongenial to many Westerners, who've come to believe that making an effort to avoid believing in anything with any conviction is the path to peace. However, dismissing a religion as popular as Christianity would also be some pretty major boat-rocking; we'd hate to exclude anyone. So they dismiss this hierarchy, as though their dismissal will cause it to cease to be the case.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  2. #112
    @.~*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 Craft View Post
    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.
    Yeah, I'm annoyed by both extremes too... but again, as you said, some people don't do well with ambiguity, so I try to be patient. (Sometimes I even succeed.)
    "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

  3. #113
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Yeah, I'm annoyed by both extremes too... but again, as you said, some people don't do well with ambiguity, so I try to be patient. (Sometimes I even succeed.)
    If one of the "extremes" were correct, it would be fallacious to dismiss it merely on the basis of its extremity.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #114
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    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.
    No, you don't understand. You're right that I am saying the words "dragon" and "dinosaur" mean two different things. Furthermore, I do not think that is open to debate. Calling dinosaurs "dragons" is no more valid than using "unicorn" as a synonym for "rhinoceros".

    When you say "I do believe in dragons, and there is plenty of evidence that they used to exist," what you mean is that there is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs used to exist, and you think dragon myths are based on dinosaurs. Your actual sentence is misleading to the listener/reader. This would even be misleading to someone hundreds of years ago, because you're talking about T-Rex, and they're talking about something that flew and breathed fire.

    There are grounds for believing that dragon myths may have been inspired by dinosaurs. It's an interesting idea, and it's certainly not unique to you. Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that unicorn stories may have been inspired by something related to the modern rhinoceros. Based on the rhino thing, I could say "I do believe in unicorns, and I have seen them at the zoo." And that would be the same thing as your bit about dragons. Your sentence -- "I do believe in dragons, and there is plenty of evidence that they used to exist" -- is misleading, because you're not using the word the same way your audience does, and you're not even really saying what you mean. It's just provocative semantics.

    I'm sure you'll misread this the same way you did my earlier posts, but I'd like to know if you think there's any difference between you saying that dragons used to exist and me saying they have unicorns at the zoo.

    Also, FWIW, this is the second or third time you've dismissively referred to "Hollywood and fantasy literature", as if modern dragon stories aren't all based on tales hundreds of years old. Setting aside the difference between Eastern and Western conceptions of dragons, those basic ideas haven't changed a great deal over the last millennium. Western dragons are almost invariably large, lizard- or snake-like creatures with scaly armor, wings, and fiery breath. It's not like Tolkien and 20th-century Hollywood conspired to radically alter this word, like in 1920 you said "dragon" and everyone thought of a fucking brontosaurus.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser
    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.
    Perspective can be readily applied to subjective situations, but when something has a set definition, there's no value in alternative perspectives. I can't learn anything new by asking someone what 2 x 2 equals, or what the word "avocado" means.



    The problem is that your argument is different than what you've actually said. Your argument is that tales about dragons originated with dinosaurs. I don't personally believe that's the case, but it's a plausible argument. However, you're using that argument to disingenuously state that dragons used to exist, and that is a distinct argument, not the same thing.

    This is the 21st century, and the word dragon has a definition which is not the same as the definition for dinosaur. And yes, I know you think that ancient people called dinosaurs dragons and based their dragon stories on dinosaurs. You've said so half a dozen times. Do you see how that is not the same thing? "X is based on Y" or "X might be mistaken for Y" does not imply "X = Y".

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Well I haven't researched thoroughly enough to write a formal paper about it.
    But if you believe this so strongly, there must be a reason for it. Surely someone else has written something you can cite? Otherwise, you believe something in the total absence of any objective evidence.


    Maybe this was all a clever ruse, getting me to condemn your faith in dragons as asinine, then pointing out that by the same logic, I've just condemned religious faith as asinine! If so, I take it all back. You're very clever.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser
    (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.
    Of course not. I'm sorry for my role in getting us sidetracked. However, as you indicated, this does relate back to the original topic, and your misunderstanding of the dragon analogy does not give me a lot of faith () in your ability to draw compelling conclusions on the subject of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser
    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.
    I agree with your general premise. The dragon analogy, unfortunately, is not an effective means to demonstrate this, because it's too grounded in the objective, the unchanging: parts of it simply are not up for debate. Some topics -- elementary math is the obvious example -- are sufficiently settled that rational, well-informed people have nothing to gain by re-considering them.

    A better example might be something undefined or unexplained. In a discussion of literature, a variety of perspectives can be illuminating, and often will make the conversation far more interesting. You need something where there's not a "right answer". Arguing that dinosaur remains inspired dragon legends would qualify; arguing that the words are interchangeable does not.

    In fact, I think you could have come right out and said the same thing about religion. It is my opinion that most major religions have something valuable to offer, even if we may be unconvinced by some of the specifics. That said, at least one of your posts seemed to imply that all religions are different ways to honor the same supernatural power, which is not a view I subscribe to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If you believe that there is a higher being, and all is this being, you are a pantheist. If you believe that there is a higher being, but this higher being is not all, and that this higher being created the universe, you are a deist. If you believe that this being has a discernible personality, personal motives, etcetera, you are a theist. If you believe that this deity is as described in the Old Testament, you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If you believe that this God sent his Son or some manifestation of Himself to earth in Jesus Christ, you are a Christian.
    The bolded sentence is problematic. You could perhaps substitute "Abrahamic God" as a more accurate substitute. I might even argue for "Hebrew God", since Islam and especially Christianity use many of the same stories but ultimately portray distinctly different deities. You might also consider "Hebrew Testament" as an alternative to the explicitly Christian and implicitly disparaging term "Old Testament". More generally, this passage strikes me as radically oversimplified, and you seem to have forgotten Islam entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft
    Christianity, as a subset of Theism, this a subset of Deism which is in turn a subset of Pantheism
    I don't see how that follows.

    I kind of get the impression that you're coming in here just to drop science, but don't actually know what you're talking about. I could be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If one of the "extremes" were correct, it would be fallacious to dismiss it merely on the basis of its extremity.
    That's true, but if you've followed this line of the conversation at all, it's pretty apparent that the "extremes" described cannot be proven correct, and to the extent they are being dismissed, it is precisely because they cannot be proven correct. Critical reading is an immensely useful skill.
    i just want to be a sweetheart

  5. #115
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    I find that I seldom find either of the extremes in people who have examined their own beliefs more briefly. I find very strong conviction, I'd say I have a fairly strong conviction on the issue myself, but generally anyone either willing or able to carry on a debate on the subject is generally not quite extreme enough to "know" (and if they do claim to 'know', I've noticed they tend to do a lot of begging the question).

    As for the pantheism/theism/deism with Mycroft... I'm not following either. My understanding is that theism is belief in a creator/Personal God, and a theist usually also believes that God has some kind of active role in humanity or the world (i.e. are open to miracles, possibly communication with such a God), though don't necessarily pretend to know the details of or nature of that God. The primary distinction with Deists, who continue to hold that God is a creator and Personal in nature (notice, this is generally considered distinct from Pantheism), but has no interest in people or human affairs, activities or ideas and does not intervene. And then, of course, Pantheism posits all things in the universe are God, but I think we know that.

    It's possible some of my understandings on those subjects is erroneous, and certainly the above descriptions are overly brief.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  6. #116
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by burymecloser View Post
    The bolded sentence is problematic. You could perhaps substitute "Abrahamic God" as a more accurate substitute. I might even argue for "Hebrew God", since Islam and especially Christianity use many of the same stories but ultimately portray distinctly different deities. You might also consider "Hebrew Testament" as an alternative to the explicitly Christian and implicitly disparaging term "Old Testament". More generally, this passage strikes me as radically oversimplified, and you seem to have forgotten Islam entirely.
    Fair enough. The Abrahamic God, then.

    I don't see how that follows.
    We begin with the belief that some greater power/being/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it exists. This brings us to pantheism. To this belief, we add that this being exists, is separate from reality, and created reality as we know if it. We've now arrived at deism. To this we add that this greater being has a distinguishable personality, wishes and desires, etcetera. Now we've arrived at Theism. To this we add all that the Abrahamic religions have added (to use your apt terminology), arriving at the Abrahamic God. To this we add, further, that this variation of a theistic deity sent his son or a manifestation of himself as Jesus Christ. We've now arrived at Christianity. To remove any of these refinements, from pantheism down, is to revert to another form of belief.

    I kind of get the impression that you're coming in here just to drop science, but don't actually know what you're talking about. I could be wrong.
    I don't know what I'm talking about, in what respect? I'll readily confess I'm not as knowledgeable of the finer details of Christianity as, say, Jennifer is, but I'm not interested in dedicating a great deal of time to learning the ins and outs of a strand of philosophy that can't offer a compelling argument, let alone any evidence, in favor of its central claims.

    That's true, but if you've followed this line of the conversation at all, it's pretty apparent that the "extremes" described cannot be proven correct, and to the extent they are being dismissed, it is precisely because they cannot be proven correct. Critical reading is an immensely useful skill.
    The point is that it's become all too common for people to dismiss stances on the strength of the conviction of the proponents. This is fallacious.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    God is the Ultimate Architect of the Universe!

  8. #118
    Senior Member think2much's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    God is the Ultimate Architect of the Universe!
    over two years and you bump this. WHY?

  9. #119
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by think2much View Post
    over two years and you bump this. WHY?
    Aparantly he believed it was a good one liner that no one would have thought of at the time this thread was active.

    Although I personally find it much more likely that there were plenty of people who saw the joke but thought it was too obvious to worth mentioning.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by think2much View Post
    over two years and you bump this. WHY?
    Because I am God and I have the power to do anything I want!

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