User Tag List

View Poll Results: What is your view on religion as an ENTP?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am Christian and very serious about it

    14 29.79%
  • I'm Christian...whateva

    1 2.13%
  • I was raised Christian and came to my senses

    13 27.66%
  • Christians freak me the funk out, stay away!

    4 8.51%
  • I'm down with the Buddha

    5 10.64%
  • I'm Muslim

    1 2.13%
  • Judaism is my thing

    3 6.38%
  • Athists are better lovers

    8 17.02%
  • Agnostics are fearless lovers

    12 25.53%
  • Dude, what the hell, you forgot mine!

    5 10.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 279

  1. #51
    Buddhist Misanthrope Samvega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    1,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Most lawyers are SJs. I know this from experience. Just sayin'
    Statistically, lawyers’ type is significantly different from most other adults in the US. Lawyers are slightly more likely to be introverts than extroverts.

    Attorneys tend to be intuitives (57%) while seventy-five percent (75%) of the U.S. population is born with a sensing preference.

    Lawyers overwhelmingly prefer thinking to feeling (again, as the terms are used in type theory). Here it’s critical to note the difference between “feeling” and “emotions” (ala neuroscience definitions and finding – every person has “emotions,” and type “feeling” refers to preferences in dealing with impacts of actions on individuals), and to look at the male/female statistical variations.

    Fifty-six percent (56%) of US males have a thinking preference, compared to eighty-one percent (81%) of US male attorneys. The difference is even more striking for females: twenty-five percent (25%) of US females have a thinking preference, compared to sixty-six percent (66%) of US female attorneys.

    Finally, lawyers are more likely to prefer judging to perceiving, again as those terms are used in psychological type theory.

  2. #52
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samvega View Post
    Statistically, lawyers’ type is significantly different from most other adults in the US. Lawyers are slightly more likely to be introverts than extroverts.

    Attorneys tend to be intuitives (57%) while seventy-five percent (75%) of the U.S. population is born with a sensing preference.

    Lawyers overwhelmingly prefer thinking to feeling (again, as the terms are used in type theory). Here it’s critical to note the difference between “feeling” and “emotions” (ala neuroscience definitions and finding – every person has “emotions,” and type “feeling” refers to preferences in dealing with impacts of actions on individuals), and to look at the male/female statistical variations.

    Fifty-six percent (56%) of US males have a thinking preference, compared to eighty-one percent (81%) of US male attorneys. The difference is even more striking for females: twenty-five percent (25%) of US females have a thinking preference, compared to sixty-six percent (66%) of US female attorneys.

    Finally, lawyers are more likely to prefer judging to perceiving, again as those terms are used in psychological type theory.
    1. How are you defining "lawyer"? If you're talking about litigators, then I could see most being intuitives. However, for all the paper work, it's all SJs.
    2. Where are you getting these stats from?
    3. Law school, and the law profession in general, is an exercise in beating all creativity out of you (judges don't like that crap). This is not the environment intuitives tend to thrive in.

    I wouldn't be shocked if there were more than the general population, say, 40%, but I'm guessing SJs constitute 50%, and SPs constitute the last 10%.

  3. #53
    Member Kuthtuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    9w3
    Socionics
    sx
    Posts
    56

    Default

    (Firstly may a I say that this is my point of view)
    I grew up in a cristian house with:
    ENFJ Father
    ESTJ Mother
    ESTP Younger Brother
    and me ENTP First Kid

    Since small i've allways had an amasing curiosity in seing how things work that being mechanicly (dismantling a toy), socialy (being part of a group, knowing who's boss and who's minion) such and such...
    And being brought up in a christian house hold realy was (at least for me) kind of rough, in the early years it was fine and dandy but in later years i fealt allot of retrains. We entps normaly have a set of "beliefs" that we hold very dearly to our hearts (WHAT!? ENTP with hearts?) and even get offended when contested. Being brought to church on relugar basis makes you from a youger age assimilate via Osmosis alot of signatures, like for example, whats wrong and whats right, whats left and whats right, whats black and whats white and so on and on. After having grown up and geting a little more dicerment I came across some "gray spots" in christianity, while some things are crystal clear white and others are pitch black, there are however some gray spots and when theese gray spots are contested you get a response like "OMG! are you losing your faith?" and that realy started to piss me off! Wich gave the fuel i needed to beging questionig things that i did not fully understand, here in Brazil (sorry for the speling mistakes xD) religious people are very intolerant to people of other religions, and that made me ask myself why do people "join" religious comunities? 100001000 reasons came to mind but I believe that nobody joins a religious faction for to feel bad about it however strange the religion may be! If the are a part of it they beleive that what they do is right and thats enough for them! Sacrificing animals, praying everyday, not smoking, not having sex before marrige or wahtever! They firmly belive that whatever they are doing is for the best.

    We must consider that over 40 % of the entire world population is "SJ", and they realy need rules in every aspect of their lives ortherwise they feel "incomplete". Religion fills the missing spot that they are after, they NEED to be black or white, they NEED to be wrong or right. We rationals dont need that. An unilateral thinking ENTP does not exist and may i dare say if you think like that, that take the test again...

    There is the good king in the castle and there's the invading barbarian horde. We ENTPs are the mercenaries, dont care about causes, we care about outcome and money xD (just kinding)
    In roman time people KNEW there where monsters in asia, people KNEW there was no other continent over the seas,in the middle ages people KNEW the earth was flat, in the 18XX people KNEW they had invented everything that was invetable... Everything the human mind does not fully understand humans make up in other to fullfil the the "Unkwon" gap, that gives u confort in some way "Its better to belive in a lie than not to belive in nothing". Plz dont get me wrong the truth is we dont know shit yet... about everything! The only sure thing we know is that some day we'll all die (for now unless we invent something that stops that). What i'm trying to say is IF there is a god (wich i do belive exists) we dont know squat about him, what we have today is a draft of whom he might be filled with HUMAN notes to cover the gaps...
    "Try and fail, try again and fail better!"

    E67% N84% T67% P95% (Procastination FTW, begining next monday)

    "It's not bad gammar, it's a sexy brasilian accent"

    R12:21

  4. #54
    Senior Member guesswho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Is it rational to say that everything came together just perfectly without a divine creator and poof there you are?
    This is actually very interesting. Is nature perfect, in the way it has evolved? Is it possible that it may look perfect because we know little because of our obvious limitations and if we would know more we would say nature has an extremely good design, but not perfect?
    Would perfection need change? Does nature change? And are the changes we see, just some minor changes that have been in the past and will be in the future, without interfering with the overall perfect design?

    Our existence may actually be a repeatable pattern of well fit causal circumstances in nature's design. Repeatable as in, there is/was/will be other life in other places.

    I'm sure nature is flawed. But it the same time it looks so perfect. So simple and yet so complex in all it's simplicity.

  5. #55
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Yes, they are. You don't want to challenge me here
    I think I do. Maybe I can answer quoting the Grimm tales. Seems fair.


    Though I'm worried about your inability or unwillingness to understand that values can exist independantly of any 'god', they just need to be shared between humans to have a social existence and be shared through language and behavior. And people just so happen to have basically the same genotype, the same 'hardware' to communicate in a meaningful way. But the fact that people often also misunderstand each other and disagree on values also hints at the fact that there isn't any 'values in the sky'. Our genotypes aren't all the same yet similar enough to allow for reproduction, in the same way our genotypes and phenotypes, experiences and cultures are dissimilar enough so that people won't agree about everything yet generally be able to convey and agree on most ideas if they speak what is considered to be the same language. edit: and of course the possibilities offered by culture allow for different preferences even when genotypes and social backgrounds are basically the same

    Give a new born sugar or salt, they'll prefer sugar.
    That's a behavior you can observe. It's also an internal state, a set of information in a brain you can also observe. Something will be preferable because it, for example, stimulates the reward centers of the brain. We do have innate 'tastes' and preferences and learned preferences based on interactions between genotype, phenotype and cultural data (knowledge, the memesphere, social geshtalts..). Those natural preferences will become the 'hardware' other socially acquired and evolved 'values' will run on. A simple example of that is how we associate 'good' with far more similar than dissimilar sets of expressions and behaviors all over the world even in different cultures.
    'Good' people, things and feelings are warm, up, attractive or even 'sexy'.
    Bad people, things and feelings are cold, down, repulsive, to be avoided...

    Animals need to evolve preferences, it's a survival trait. They need to prefer eating safe nourishing food rather than poisonous mushrooms, to try to mate with their species rather than predators etc. The behaviors that translate into added reproductive rates will be correlated with the replicators that allowed for it (genes and memes in humans) and transmitted unto the next generations while other less successful strategies will be slowly weeded out of the gene and memepool. Then of course since in the case of genes there aren't enough of them to code for every little detail and evolution didn't have infinite time in a stable environment to perfect everything so the system itself will have 'quicks', redundancies, useless code, bad wiring (and it does). What counts is that it was relatively 'better'\prefered (through survival and reproduction) than the alternatives as a whole and at the time.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  6. #56
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    I have an ENTP friend that I went to college with. He's the pastor of a church. I suppose many in this thread would say that invalidates his MBTI (stereo)type.

    This thread is slightly amusing because many of the responses claim to be rational, and yet they show evidence of not understanding the issues and arguing from their own belief structure while claiming their own beliefs as a priori factual knowledge. This is typical of these types of discussions, and that's why they're generally pointless to participate in.

    Nearly every major religion or spiritual perspective has a clearly expressed rational basis which is well-substantiated in philosophical literature. Without discussing and referencing these works and concepts, any discussion of one belief structure being irrational, invalid, or being inferior or superior to another in some way generally disintegrates into intellectual bullying.

    We might as well just be honest in our pedantry and say something simple like, "Oh yeah? Well my idea is better, and it can beat up your idea!"

  7. #57
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guesswho View Post
    I don't believe in religion.
    I do. I have observed religion directly as people practiced it, and therefore I believe in the existence of religion.

  8. #58
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    But, without God there is no reason to love or admire anything... everything just is. Without God all value judgements (including what is beautiful) are completely subjective and just the result of chemical reactions in the human brain. Nothing more.
    Do you not believe that you, too, find something beautiful because of chemical reactions in your brain, only that it is so because god intended it so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    We might be able to judge whether a belief system is rational in that it is internally consistent, but we can't stand outside of a belief system and say it is definitely irrational because our judgement will necessarily be driven by our own unprovable presumptions.

    It might be true that whatever belief system NT's adopt they attempt to be as logically consistent as possible. But, saying you reject religion because you are rational is dumb. What you really mean is that you find a separate set of presumptions more appealing and prefer the logical construct built upon those unprovable presumptions.
    The truth is that we share a common set of presumptions, by virtue of which we agree that the world is more or less as we perceive it, that time is relative, that the universe is awfully vast and that the methods through which we arrive at these 'truths' are apt to discover such; we differ in that you also believe in something which is unproven and unprovable through those methods. So you actually apply two different sets of presumptions, one wrapped in the other, while I apply just one.

    When we look on the ground, we wear the same glasses, but when we look to the sky, you put on another set. Why is that? What convinced you that only this set of glasses allows for a proper view of the sky?

  9. #59
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I didn't post earlier because I thought the thread would remain about ENTPs, not expand to NTs.

    I used to believe pretty strongly in more conservative Christianity.
    I grew up in an environment where it seemed to conform the best to what information I had, so to me, it was the most rational choice.

    I had a lot of cognitive dissonance, though, the older I got and the more I was exposed to other ways to look at the world.
    Finally I reached a point where I shifted into an intellectually agnostic view of the world, in terms of what can be shown.
    (I'm not even sure it needs to be an either/or mentality; there could potentially be overlap among various perspectives, frameworks operating simultaneously rather than one exclusively.)
    But... how would any of us know?

    So I suppose my response to someone's faith revolves mostly around what level of doubt they permit themselves -- how well they can acknowledge ambiguity in the world.

    Continuing, much of my substantial interest in Christianity was more in the patterns of character growth and ethics, rather than necessarily its historicity, and the parts of that that correlate with my practical/psychological understanding human beings and society are still parts that I retain and can use Christianity as a framework via which to view things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    A rational person can't believe in an irrational thing.
    I guess there are no rational human beings then.
    (Cuz I sure as hell can't believe that a generally rational person never has any irrational beliefs.)
    "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

  10. #60
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I've learnt about the belief in christianity it's a choice you make for yourself, like the choice you have in choosing a partner. I never understand why it's always necessary to have so many arguements going on between believers and non-believers instead of just respecting everyone's position and that's it. Obviously there is a lot of need for arguements since christianity threads always polarize much and have mnany responses. I dont understand what it gives me tho to convince someone that there is no God who said before there is a God. I think western world makes it possible to accept different opinions and its up to everyone to choose. Am I so way off with thinking so ?
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Rant on ENTPs
    By Blackwater in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: 09-30-2012, 10:20 AM
  2. [ENTP] ENTP personality type descritpion
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-13-2010, 11:50 PM
  3. [ENTP] Are ENTPs aggressive/forceful?
    By substitute in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 05-04-2010, 06:13 AM
  4. [ENTP] Good Qualities of ENTPs
    By ygolo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 11-29-2009, 09:16 AM
  5. [ENTP] ENtp and Marijuana!
    By Maha Raj in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 02:13 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