[ENTP] Christian ENTPs?

[Beorn]

But this is a conclusion based on an argument that assumes that "God exists" in the first place. Until you prove that your statement has no meaning.

We currently have no proof either way.

My point is that the two belief systems have two very different results. In one Truth and beauty exist in the other everything just is and beauty is just a name for biologically driven preferences and not a thing that exists independent of humans.

The issue with that line of reasoning is that 1) you assume that reason go for absolutes when that's actually more generally the view theists have about 'rational people'.

For reason to be worth a damn it must rest on truthful presumptions which require absolutes. If you don't believe in any absolutes I fail to see why you would take any meaningful position on the matter.

Unprovable would also apply to any of your claims, the difference is, no matter how unreliable the information we have is; models based on some possibly unreliable information (maybe our sense lie or we are manipulated etc etc.) is still infinitely more reliable than claims made with no information backing it.

I think you are misapplying what I'm saying. I'm not saying claims are unprovable I'm saying our basic functions our unreliable in themselves. What we sense and know the very process of data collection is marred with uncertainty. I addressed this with you before in the link provided above.

So claims with what you call "information" backing them are not more reliable than any other claim.

On a side note, attacking thesis 1 doesn't make thesis 2 true, common fallacy.

I never said I'm right because you're wrong.

And that's bad .. why ?

The point is there is no bad.

It's like saying that pedophiles don't exist because I don't like the idea.

But, that would be true. In a sense it wouldn't exist. The word pedophile is totally wrapped up in value judgements. One would never use the word on a an older male chimp molesting a young male chimp. So if nobody liked the idea of pedophilia the value driven concept would vanish, even if men continued to molest young boys and girls.

Also the whole bit about god being necessary for values etc is silly. Your whole line of argument is based upon the assumption that things can only have one 'function' at a time while everyday life shows that's never the case (same for the link you gave me).
Ever heard about relativity ?

This is completely confusing. How does my argument rest on the idea that everything must have one function at a time?

And if one looks at the supposed 'word of God' (abraham based religions) the rules and lessons aren't even consistent with each other.

Yes, they are. You don't want to challenge me here.

 

[onemoretime]

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.

If it has meaning to you, what does the rest of it matter?

 

[Beorn]

If it has meaning to you, what does the rest of it matter?

It's the difference between taking the red pill and the blue pill.

[YOUTUBE="uGQF8LAmiaE"]red pill or blue pill[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Samvega]

Yin and Yang, Night and Day, Fire and Water, Hot and Cold, Doubt and Faith, I would call anybody a fool for trying to embrace one without the other. This however is the exact thing we see most faiths doing, they want to embrace faith yet reject doubt which is an impossibility leaving you with neither faith nor doubt but an illusion. Embracing doubt means you see the same truth in the beliefs you reject as those you embrace and in doing so a universal truth is created. You understand everybody has the same beginning/comes from the same place and you know all will have the same end/go to the same place. The difference being what we think in the middle which has nothing to do with reality as that is the unchanging/unknown variable, it's universal. The exception to this being all will have the afterlife of their respective faiths but that would invalidate your faith as well and reduce it to picking out a toothbrush.

I have no attachment to any outcome, I'm here, I'm thankful for that, if however I got here wants to be thanked for giving this to me I will be happy to do so when the time comes and it's my assertion that time will be very clear.

 

[onemoretime]

It's the difference between taking the red pill and the blue pill.

However, wasn't the ultimate point of the Matrix that the choice was after all, meaningless, and that through constantly chasing after a Platonic ideal, and seeking to impose our version of truth, that we sow the seeds of our own destruction?

Zion would be destroyed as long as Neo believed that the Matrix must be destroyed. It was not until both sides came to an understanding that respected the validity of the other's perspective of the world that the war ended, wasn't it?

 

[Lightyear]

If I meet an ENTP [or intuitive for that matter] I normally commence with the Christian bashing assuming there's no way on earth they could be one. Likewise, if I meet a sensor I assume they are and proceed with caution.

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for all faiths but intuitives tend to be rational people and since rational arguments don't normally work on religious people (otherwise, there would be no religious people) I tend to assume intuitives have processed Christianity and dismissed it, something sensors don't tend to do.

Thoughts and ideas would be great as I have no attachment to being right, just curious how the numbers play out.

Wow. I haven't seen that many stupid stereotypes in one post for ages.

 

[Samvega]

Wow. I haven't seen that many stupid stereotypes in one post for ages.

I know right, it's like saying black people are faster runners than white people! Oh wait, that's a true stereo type /: Okay, it's more like saying more Ns are lawyers and more Ss are teachers and nurses! Oh wait, that's true too. I'm just confused now, I'm not even sure if I agree with my original assessment so please, will some Christian ENTPs come in here and prove what an idiot I am for stereotyping a whole MBTI group. It's not like I'm calling ENTPs "inventors" or INFJs "counselors" which would REALLY be stereotyping and enough to turn anybody off to a concept that by design would fail to exists without stereotyping.

 

[onemoretime]

Okay, it's more like saying more Ns are lawyers and more Ss are teachers and nurses!

Most lawyers are SJs. I know this from experience. Just sayin'

 

[Lightyear]

I know right, it's like saying black people are faster runners than white people! Oh wait, that's a true stereo type /: Okay, it's more like saying more Ns are lawyers and more Ss are teachers and nurses! Oh wait, that's true too. I'm just confused now, I'm not even sure if I agree with my original assessment so please, will some Christian ENTPs come in here and prove what an idiot I am for stereotyping a whole MBTI group. It's not like I'm calling ENTPs "inventors" or INFJs "counselors" which would REALLY be stereotyping and enough to turn anybody off to a concept that by design would fail to exists without stereotyping.

I believe that there is a certain truth behind a lot of stereotypes so I am not against stereotyping per se but the brush strokes you are using while stereotyping are so ridiciously wide that I can't take your conclusions seriously.

Basically you are saying in your initial post:

intuitive = rational
being a Christian = irrational

intuitives ≠ Christians

Just from my own experience I can tell you that you are wrong. I am an intutive and a Christian (after having been brought up as an atheist), I know a lot of intuitives who are Christians (including ENTPs) and whom I wouldn't describe as irrational at all, instead they are educated, sane individuals.

As I said, I just can't take your initial post seriously because the conclusions you are drawing are so far-fetched.

 

[Samvega]

I believe that there is a certain truth behind a lot of stereotypes so I am not against stereotyping per se but the brush strokes you are using while stereotyping are so ridiciously wide that I can't take your conclusions seriously.

Basically you are saying in your initial post:

intuitive = rational
being a Christian = irrational

intuitives ≠ Christians

Just from my own experience I can tell you that you are wrong. I am an intutive and a Christian (after having been brought up as an atheist), I know a lot of intuitives who are Christians (including ENTPs) and whom I wouldn't describe as irrational at all, instead they are educated, sane individuals.

As I said, I just can't take your initial post seriously because the conclusions you are drawing are so far-fetched.

The next post I make I will base it on the exceptions to the stereo types instead of the rules and we'll see if that makes more sense. There is an injection of humor in here that you may be missing, the thought train went a little more along these lines:

SJs = Irrational
Christianity = Irrational
SJs = The majority of Christians and the majority of the population
Ns = Big picture, find logic appealing rational thinkers
Ns = Rarely Christian and the minority of the population

This would be much along the same lines as saying the majority of TypeC users are intuitives and while you could find A LOT of sensors on here they are drastically outnumbers when compared to the real world.

 

[Samvega]

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.

 

[onemoretime]

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%.

 

[Kuthtuk]

(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...

 

[guesswho]

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.

 

[EcK]

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.

 

[JAVO]

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!"

 

[Oberon]

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

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?

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?

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

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.)

 

[entropie]

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 ?