[NT] NT's and belief in a deity

[maliafee]

Do you believe in a god, NT's?

Why or why not?

For instance, I knew an NT who was a self-theist, and many NT atheists.
I'm curious whether type plays a role (are NTP's more likely to believe in some kind of deity than NTJ's? etc.)

Discuss!

(Not sure if I should have put this thread in the NT Forums...)

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

 

[The Ü™]

I believe in myself. So yes, I guess I do believe in a deity.

 

[spirilis]

The concept of a deity never made all that much sense to me, although I believed in it by necessity (my parents did therefore I did) during my childhood days. It's somewhere around my teenage years that I quietly slipped into an atheist point of view.

 

[Ulaes]

I believe in myself. So yes, I guess I do believe in a deity.

darn.. i was going to say something like that.
does this mean i have to challenge you to a dominance battle of the gods?

 

[The Ü™]

darn.. i was going to say something like that.
does this mean i have to challenge you to a dominance battle of the gods?

Well, if that's you in your avatar, you can't masturbate, so you've already lost.

 

[Orangey]

Moved to NT Rationale

 

[jenocyde]

I am agnostic because I can't commit to anything.

 

[juggernaut]

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.

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

LOL

 

[FigerPuppet]

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.

Atheism can mean both "lack of belief in God" and "belief in the non-existence of God."

OP should've used the terms "Weak Atheist" (Agnostic Atheist) and "Strong Atheist" (Gnostic Atheist) instead of "Agnostic" and "Atheist".

I chose atheist becase I lack belief, not because I believe in the non-existence.

 

[juggernaut]

For me agnosticism better captures my own position. I simply know nothing (a + gnos + tic) about a god or gods and, as such, have no belief at all regarding such things. If they/he/she/it exists I have no epistemic access to them/he/she/it. The same holds true for the case in which they don't. I'm a narrow atheist to be sure, but I went with the original definition of atheism:

a⋅the⋅ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

[FigerPuppet]

The technical breakdown supports my definition:

Ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheós), “‘godless’”) < from ἀ- (a-), “‘without’”) + θεός (theos), “‘deity, god’”).

And so does Webster

# S: atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
# S: atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

 

[juggernaut]

atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

That is a positive assertion. The belief is that there is no God. I maintain no such belief, because I am without knowledge (agnostic) of god at all. I'm also agnostic about many other things, and therefore have no belief about them (fairies, the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch, etc.). Your definitions both (the first quote which is actually an etymological breakdown and the first of the two others) point to actual beliefs...the belief that there is no god. I don't maintain such a belief. I believe nothing at all when it comes to gods/god.

 

[jenocyde]

a + theos = without god
a + gnosis = without knowledge

Done? good.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Your definitions both (the first quote which is actually an etymological breakdown and the first of the two others) point to actual beliefs...the belief that there is no god. I don't maintain such a belief. I believe nothing at all when it comes to gods/god.

So you are an agnostic (S: agnosticism (a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God)) atheist (S: atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods))

 

[juggernaut]

So you are an agnostic (S: agnosticism (a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God)) atheist (S: atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods))

Yes, I am agnostic and, yes, I am a narrow atheist (Judeo-christian accounts of an omniscient, omnipotent "good" god strike me as a bit odd and ill-conceived). I am not, however, an atheist in the broad sense (it's entirely possible that we humans have just completely missed the boat on this one). I don't believe in the nonexistence of a god any more than the existence. God is a concept devoid of meaning to me. I can't not believe in something I have no knowledge of any more than I can believe in it. So, no, atheist doesn't work for me.

 

[Ardea]

Aren't INTPs known for being very religious?

Think, for a minute...


I'm an ENTP, who believes in God. Ti makes it flow. Fe makes it right. And Ne makes it... mind blowing.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Yes, I am agnostic and, yes, I am a narrow atheist. I am not, however, an atheist in the broad sense. I don't believe in the nonexistence of a god any more than the existence. God is a concept devoid of meaning to me. I can't not believe in something I have no knowledge of any more than I can believe in it. So, no, atheist doesn't work for me.

Do you agree that it technically does according to the 2nd. definition, 2nd. quote in my last post?

 

[Aleph-One]

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. We don't, for example, say that the belief that Thor and Zeus do not exist is unwarranted. We simply ask ourselves "What is the evidence or likelihood that they do exist, and what is the evidence or likelihood that humans would invent this as a story?" It doesn't take too much time to decide that there is no evidence at all and that it is unlikely that Thor and Zeus exist, and plenty of identifying marks on the mythology to suggest that it is a human invention. So why is it always different in a conversation about the Abrahamic mythology? Of each deity of religious belief, the lack of evidence is the same, and the indications that the mythology is self-serving (and wrong) are always there. So it doesn't really require any stronger a case than, say, Russell's Teapot. It would be foolish to concede that maybe there is a teapot orbiting the sun, and that we should plead agnosticism about it.

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.