• 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] NTs and God

Fuent

New member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
153
MBTI Type
ENTP
Pascal's wager seems pretty silly when you consider two things: it could be applied to countless religions, and you do have something to lose: your lifetime. If you turn out to be wrong, then you have wasted precious time worshipping a nonexistent God and trying to follow the moral restrictions of a useless book.

yes.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Personally, I have more than enough reason to hate religion: It has bitten me in the ass far too many times for my welfare. I don't know why I don't hate God, hate religion, and hate religious people. But for some reason, I still have some sort of "faith" and find it compatibility with my rationality. It isn't fundamentalist Christianity, but it's still there.

Faith is defined by its being irrational. Do you conceive of your faith and your ration as two separate "substances" which are able to coexist in your mind?

This is essentially why I (and most people) believe in science. It works and it's improved my quality of life. In fact whether or not something works is the most objective type of proof. Anything else is simply an attempt to elaborate on why something works.

This anthropocentric view you have; this way that you can't separate the subjective experience of psychological effects from the objective and scientific - it makes me nuts.

How is it that you can genuinely conceive of "if I apply the following verified laws of physics in such-and-such a manner it will have the following empirically verifiable real-world outcome" and "if I do the following it will make me feel nice" as being one and the same?

Admittedly, both of the preceding examples fall under the umbrella of the English term "works", but this is what comes of the Ti-user's over-reliance on "definitions".

Edit: Just to quicken the proceedings, I'll save you the typing:

"But my improving my life is an objective real-world effect!"

Fine. But, as you have yourself noted, this belief system "works" in the same sense that drugs or, to cite another secular example, therapy will, hence it is, again, no proof that a God exists. (I also can't help but note that the only thing you've offered support for in your posts until now is the belief in faith; I perhaps erred in jumping to the conclusion that you wouldn't be the type to simply believe in the act of believing in a thing which likely doesn't exist.)
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
This anthropocentric view you have; this way that you can't separate the subjective experience of psychological effects from the objective and scientific - it makes me nuts.

How is it that you can genuinely conceive of "if I apply the following verified laws of physics in such-and-such a manner it will have the following empirically verifiable real-world outcome" and "if I do the following it will make me feel nice" as being one and the same?

Admittedly, both of the preceding examples fall under the umbrella of the English term "works", but this is what comes of the Ti-user's over-reliance on "definitions".

Mycroft,

Have you ever read Paul Feyerabend and his theory of "epistemological anarchism"?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Thanks for this insight.
How can you speak about God with an NT ?

Well, we aren't exactly known for our tact.

The fact is, unfortunately, that you probably can't without admitting as a first premise that your entire belief system is fundamentally irrational, at which point the NT feels he has already won. (Yes, it's a game/competition. It always is.) You can try to debate God rationally with him/her, if you want. You'll lose. He will likely dismiss you with some kind of, "Well sure, if you admit that it's totally irrational then go ahead and believe whatever you want!"

Some people don't require rational/empirical evidence to make decisions. As an NT myself I must confess I am naturally rather irritated with this tendency, but I think NTs in general would do well to remember that it's fundamentally irrational to expect everyone to behave rationally.

Since NTs are so naturally self-righteous about their logical/analytical abilities, the absolute worst thing you can do is try to beat the NT at his own game--DO NOT engage him in rational battle. Instead, try to appeal to his F side--this may sound silly, but many NTs that I know are perfectly willing to exercise their F functions when allowed to Be Right. You must understand that for all their rational objectivity, many younger/less mature NTs (especially the ENTs) have an irrational, emotional attachment to Being Right. It's in their blood, and it takes a long time with a lot of practice and conditioning to control that NT urge to verbally annihilate the competition, just for sport.

F'rinstance, I've got an INTP friend who plays poker very seriously at a fairly high skill level. I've played poker for a long time too, but I don't have the same level of experience he does, and so this particular game (and game theory in general) are a couple of his NT "areas of authority." Any time we have a dispute about poker strategy, if I don't quickly back down and openly admit that he is correct, he gets very pissy very quickly and productive conversation grinds to a halt. I find that I can learn more from him by simply letting him think he's right in every strategy discussion and phrasing my questions from the vantage point of a lesser being seeking his wisdom and guidance. Almost everyone of any type is naturally flattered when you ask for his opinion or advice, and NTs loooove to talk about their interests.

The tragic irony about us, however, is how irrational we become in the placement of our priorities when we perceive ANYTHING remotely resembling a challenge to our logical thinking abilities. Suddenly we feel threatened--logic is the only thing I'm really GOOD at; if I let them take that away it would lead to all sorts of emotional problems and insecurities. FIGHT TO THE DEATH IT IS!

We know we can win just about any argument we want with our S friends (and most of our NF friends, even), but part of growing up into a mature NT is learning when to have the discipline to choose not to win. We are not typically so good at picking our battles ^_^

Here's what I would say:

"Listen, I know that my beliefs are irrational, and I respect that you can't support them. But please allow me to practice them in peace, as they are very important to me emotionally."

Come right out and admit, whether or not you actually believe it, that you are being irrational. This allows the NT to reassure himself that he is still the champion of the rational debate arena for today, and it makes him much more approachable and emotionally accessible.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
wise post Simulated. : )

Personally, as hard as It is to believe, I love to learn and tell people that yeah, I dont know and I'm wrong.
But religion is really my 'berserk' spot when it comes to arguing. Because it's BOTH irrational and a traditional and often unquestionned norme.
My brain is basically wired to fight it to the death and beyond. (like TNT wired to my dead body or something charming like that)

ps: no i'm not apologizing, i'm just stating a few facts
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Yes not trying to make any sensible arguments yet calling those others proposed as originating from 'insecure flamers' makes you come out as a genius.
Reread the OP. It was a request for individual opinions on the existence of God, not an invitation for non-believers to pester believers.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
Reread the OP. It was a request for individual opinions on the existence of God, not an invitation for non-believers to pester believers.
Yes, freedom of speech is bad and logical arguments are to be dismessed as unworthy of ur presence. I'm sorry if your freaky love to control things and people can't be fullfilled by 1 line ad hominem attacks. (see if it had 2 lines, that 'd be another story)

Eat a cookie, those things happen
 

placebo

New member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFP
Yes, freedom of speech is bad and logical arguments are to be dismessed as unworthy of ur presence. I'm sorry if your freaky love to control things and people can't be fullfilled by 1 line ad hominem attacks. (see if it had 2 lines, that 'd be another story)

Eat a cookie, those things happen

LOL so rude... and yet--the avatar is so silly and cute and unassuming... I don't even feel bothered. Well done :jew:
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
Ow yeah, I forgot, the good and benevolant god will send me to hell for using my brain, which "he" gave me. ...

I surely hope what you've written to this point isn't what you mean by "using your brain." Seriously, you seem to have a lot of emotion invested in your rants. That doesn't seem to be the fruit of thoughtful ponderings.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
Yes, freedom of speech is bad and logical arguments are to be dismessed as unworthy of ur presence. I'm sorry if your freaky love to control things and people can't be fullfilled by 1 line ad hominem attacks. (see if it had 2 lines, that 'd be another story)

Eat a cookie, those things happen

Wow. It gets even better. Eck misuses the term "ad hominem attack" (unless he feels "non-believer" is pejorative) while launching his own ad hominem attack with terms like "freaky love" and "control."

As an INTJ, I love the irony.
 

jamesvl

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
21
I'm an INTJ and I believe in God, and Christ. Apparently according to most of the comments, that must be impossible, but actually I was a Christian before I discovered I was an INTJ - go figure...

anyway, it is possible. Though mind you, I do read relentlessly and do not go to church (because they're nuts and ignorant scholastically imho).

I have also read the Qua'ran, the Torah and bothered to learn enough Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic to actually bother checking what I believe. I also have found that much of what is taught as religion, or Christianity is so far from the actual truth of all the documented manuscripts (of which there are 15,000) that to only draw from 66 books, would be foolish.

I haven't lost my love for true history, nor astronomy, or histrionics. I still love all the disciplines.

In all truth, I have found that clarity was less effort to understand and answers made more sense after I became a Christian, though I've also had what could be described as insanely metaphysical experiences, NOT under the influence of any foreign radical, at the time of those events.

So either there is a God, or I'm completely insane. And I'm not insane... though then again, anyone who thinks they're crazy isn't and anyone who doesn't must be... heh...

so who knows right?
 

jamesvl

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
21
Pascal's wager seems pretty silly when you consider two things: it could be applied to countless religions, and you do have something to lose: your lifetime. If you turn out to be wrong, then you have wasted precious time worshipping a nonexistent God and trying to follow the moral restrictions of a useless book.

this is an interesting statement. Now, I can understand how it would be and is perceived as "worship" but what if it isn't worship? What if it's just realization and communication?

I'm an INTJ and a Christian. That's almost a contradiction in terms, however, as an INTJ I would need unmitigated proof to validate that type of statement. And, as analytical as I am, I assure you, I didn't just write off the few experiences as this or that. I dug. I searched. I researched, and I checked.

Now, if i were to apply my experiences to the simplicity of the 66 books which make up the bible, then yup... I'd have to get myself checked, or find out if perhaps I had some form of chemical imbalance.

However, I dug deeper than those books. I discovered that there are 15,000 manuscripts alone just to validate the Qua'ran, the Torah, the bible, as well as about 5 other books read by the Jews. I also discovered that there are a slew of monotheistic religions that predate Christianity which have the same foundations, all bound on the same concepts.

So in regards to your statement. Sure. When it comes to your run of the mill Christian parrot who can squawk out verse this and chapter that, and book the other... absolutely, they're bound by their faith and follow a rigid set of rules which in truth - do not actually exist, and most of which were initiated after the council of Nicene prior to Constantine's death. Oh, he died a worshiper of Osiris and was baptized post mortum, in case you're curious.

However me? Nope. I don't have any trouble having a beer. I don't feel guilty or ashamed because I desire my girl friend, and I don't care at all if anyone else wants to get stoned, drunk or sleep around. Has nothing to do with me or my life, or my faith.

I also don't have this ridiculous Amway mentality that requires me to "win souls for the kingdom" because that isn't written anywhere in any book. It's an idea that is fully and completely man made.

So I know for me, I'm not wasting my life. I still make choices based upon the same personal convictions, without finding that I have to step on anyone's free will or ability to destroy themselves, with their own random choices.

As a matter of fact, I have fantastic debates on God (not religion, because I can't debate what I do not support), with both of my business partners.

They're enlightening, and entertaining, and neither of my business partners need to hear me say, "this book that chapter, and that verse through this verse" ever because the difference between worship, and interactive relationship is communication, and it relieves any and all of that elitist arrogance, which religion breeds.

cheers~!
 

Kangirl

I'm a star.
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,470
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Straight up agnostic here. My opinion on the god/no god question is that I simply have no way of knowing.

An atheist ex of mine, when we discussed this, used to ask me "do you believe in unicorns"? (point being, there is no proof of the existence of unicorns, as there is no proof of god, so how could I be anything other than atheist, if I also considered myself a rational/logical person) It's hard to explain this, and if pushed for an answer I would say that no, of course I don't believe in unicorns. But do I believe there are things we don't yet, or can't know? Do I believe in the possibility of mystery? Might there be unicorns in some other dimension, on some other planet etc.? Yes to all those questions.

No unicorns in my backyard that I can observe with my 5 senses. No god, either. But could there be, somewhere or somehow? Sure. I just can't know or say for sure! Hence, agnosticism.
 

Tayshaun

New member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
172
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Unifying trend among NTs: If God exists, immanent rather than transcendent.

Leaning #1: Atheism Sheer materialism and empiricism. No immanence and no transcendence.

Leaning #2: Naturalistic Pantheism. God is the substance in the natural chain of events. Everything in Nature obeys universal laws. God=Laws of Nature, therefore all is God. I might not be expressing this well (SolitaryWalker can correct me considering he is much more learned about Spinoza and so on).

Leaning #3: Deism The main one before the 19th century. Rejection of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth, use of reason instead. God(s) is the creator but has no worry about human affairs. There is no direct communication (prayers are useless), but he exists nonetheless.

Personally: atheist who can rationally accept the metaphysics of a pantheist.
 

Insidious 3

New member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
18
MBTI Type
INTJ
There is no god.
Religion was invented by cavemen who didn't understand what was going on around them, so they invented god.
Now that we understand alot more about the world, religion is no longer required, and it has become like a straight jacket on human society, holding us back from growing into the future.
Quite simply, religion should be abolished so we can move forward.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
What do NTs think of God, and how do they relate to Him ?
Three Christian-culture NTs I know admit either indifference or little understanding of what they call "religion."

Is it possible for an NT to be interested in God ?

God is a spirit, eternal, infinite, and unchanging in being, wisdom, power, justice, goodness, holiness, and truth.

God is a higher power relative to me. God is the highest power relative to all. God is eternal; were he not, he would be created, and his creator would be higher than him. God is the only eternal; were there more than one, or if all were eternal, he would not be highest. Because not all is eternal, at least some is temporal, and that which is temporal was brought into being by God. Therefore, God is the eternal creator.

The nature of a being is revealed by what a being does. God creates and rules in his creation; thus, to understand the natures of things created is to understand the nature of God. Man as a rational animal created in the image of God is to use his reason to make distinctions between things in order to understand and name the creation in order to make known the glory of God revealed in the creation.

No thing is more interesting than God.
 
Top