• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Wondering what NT's....

yaaay for procrastination ^.^

  • Gnostic Theist

    Votes: 14 21.5%
  • Agnostic Theist

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • Gnostic Atheist

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Agnostic Atheist

    Votes: 28 43.1%
  • Implicit Atheist

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • ALL OF THEM/none of them

    Votes: 8 12.3%

  • Total voters
    65

Shiet_Happens

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
85
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6?
You've used observation and the assumption that our universe follows predictable, simple patterns which can be known by humans. You've assumed there is something like universal laws of nature.
But you can't be 100% sure of that... 99,9999999999999%, yes, but not 100%. Who says there is no invisible second moon made of magical diamond which is pulled by the earth's gravity but doesn't pull back?
I'm as sure of the non-existence of a god as I am of that second moon.
The god hypothesis - "there is at least one being which is more original than us, caused us to be (whether by creating us out of dirt or by manipulating matter and genes over millions of years) and cares about us (whether in a good or a bad way) and wants us to do his will" - is as falsifiable as the second moon hypothesis.

TROLL DETECTED

(the italized part) The moon wouldn't matter because it would not affect us or the Earth if that invisible mass did not pull back. Its like that there is a civilization with vast cities like our on this very planet, 'XEPT its invisbal :O BUT TRUST ME, its there. and im getting an awsome bj from the ghost of meghan fox. forever.

Besides, how would something be invisible? like on the atomic scale? While that stuff is interesting, it has no part in real science.

So your saying that a god is "as falsifiable as the second moon hypothesis."????:doh::doh:
Heres a banana llama :D :bananallama: <-- so fucking awsome
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Shiet: Wtf is going on with you?

Frankly, I believe that a God is not provable, in either direction. I flop back and forth on the idea. So...I just focus on the well being of my mentality.

And by the way, that had so many grammatical/punctuational errors, I have a headache.
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I am a fluff poster and I want to throw you out.

Also, I would like to add that I also believe that while there may not have been some conscious being of love, or whatever, something created us. And I guess I shall name it God.
 

Mr. Sherlock Holmes

Consulting Detective
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
1,450
MBTI Type
JiNe
Enneagram
5W4
TROLL DETECTED

(the italized part) The moon wouldn't matter because it would not affect us or the Earth if that invisible mass did not pull back. Its like that there is a civilization with vast cities like our on this very planet, 'XEPT its invisbal :O BUT TRUST ME, its there. and im getting an awsome bj from the ghost of meghan fox. forever.

Besides, how would something be invisible? like on the atomic scale? While that stuff is interesting, it has no part in real science.

So your saying that a god is "as falsifiable as the second moon hypothesis."????:doh::doh:
Heres a banana llama :D :bananallama: <-- so fucking awsome

What he's saying is that since correlation implies causation but doesn't mean it must be so (like lack of pirates causing global warming). So really there is the faintest possibility that everything in the universe following the laws that we have observed is just coincidence. But like he said, the chances of it are extremely low, with about a 0.99999999999... chance that the laws of physics would not allow this, but it's not impossible that we're wrong the whole time. However, mathematically, 0.99... IS technically 1, so...
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How is it 1, exactly? As far as I was aware, it was mathematically NOT 1.
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This really bothers me. Does that mean that 2.9999.... is also 3? And so on and so forth?
What about other infinite repeating decimals?
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So it appears it does. This is going to drive me insane. I need to take some more math classes and try to understand. Because how can 0.9etc be 1?

Does this mean that almost is good enough? Because apparently, almost IS the quantity of 'enough' with 0.99999etc.
 

Mr. Sherlock Holmes

Consulting Detective
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
1,450
MBTI Type
JiNe
Enneagram
5W4
So it appears it does. This is going to drive me insane. I need to take some more math classes and try to understand. Because how can 0.9etc be 1?

Does this mean that almost is good enough? Because apparently, almost IS the quantity of 'enough' with 0.99999etc.

Because 0.09 is 1/10 of 0.9 and 0.009 is 1/10 of 0.09 etc. and 0.999... just has an infinite number of fractions of fractions, so the fraction left over is infinitely small. It is 1/infinity, and anything divided by infinity is 0.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Agnostic Atheist. Emphasis on Agnostic in that my opinion in the matter means nothing. What I'm after is the truth...not what I believe the truth to be.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
Agnostic Theist. I do believe something exists, but it cannot be defined by any definition that we, as humans, could create. This is only because we do not know if it exists.
 

niffer

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,217
MBTI Type
ENfP
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Lol okay I understand I'm not an NT. Don't worry, I didn't vote. I was just wondering how someone would classify my "beliefs".

I was baptised as both a Christian and a Buddhist when I was a baby, without my consent. I suppose I acknowledge these religions and I can understand the spirituality involved in them. But I don't consider this religion a part of who I am, and I don't consider it something that dictates my actions - in short it isn't something I think about. If I was forced or it was beneficial for me to live in a way in which religious involvement was a significant part of my lifestyle, it wouldn't bother me. I often thank/take time to appreciate life itself and things I am fortunate to have in my life when it crosses my mind, but I wouldn't say it is directed at any diety in particular. I just like to be conscious of my appreciation so that I don't take these things for granted. I guess I think of religion as more like peoples' culture/lifestyle. I guess in my mind, God and/or Buddha and/or other dieties do exist in the way that war generals in ancient history existed. The reality is that 99% of my "knowledge" is from outside sources, mostly the compiled experiences of other humans. There is plenty of this that I have yet to prove or disprove, so as far as the knowledge that I use in my day to day life, I focus on using the knowledge that I have been able to solidify through my own experience. Does that make sense? I mean if someone were to ask me if I was religious, I would say "not really" or "kind of" depending on who I am talking to - obviously to me my religious status/consistency is less important to me than getting along with other people. I think I would consider myself as a total agnostic. I wouldn't be an implicit atheist because I have *some* religious influence. I don't think I'd be an agnostic atheist because that would imply that at base I can't believe in anything I can't be sure about yet and insist on endlessly questioning everything I have no concrete proof of. Again, I don't think I'd be an agnostic theist because, well, religion/theistic thinking just isn't really a part of my life.
 
Top