• 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.

[ENTP] Christian ENTPs?

What is your view on religion as an ENTP?

  • I am Christian and very serious about it

    Votes: 11 26.2%
  • I'm Christian...whateva

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • I was raised Christian and came to my senses

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • Christians freak me the funk out, stay away!

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • I'm down with the Buddha

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • I'm Muslim

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • Judaism is my thing

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • Athists are better lovers

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • Agnostics are fearless lovers

    Votes: 12 28.6%
  • Dude, what the hell, you forgot mine!

    Votes: 5 11.9%

  • Total voters
    42

strawberries

shadow boxer
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
947
MBTI Type
----
ENTPs do have a tendency to bash tradition and mass beliefs.

and a tendency for an irritating brand of contrariness.

i'm agnostic, but i've learnt that belittling others for their spiritual beliefs makes you fat and grumpy.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
Our will = Our own thoughts individual or not + The influence of the environment we live in + The influence of our biology, our genes.

There is no such thing as 100% free will, we are modeled and model ourselves in the same time.
 

Serendipity

the Dark Prophet of Kualu
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
852
MBTI Type
RAD
Our will = Our own thoughts individual or not + The influence of the environment we live in + The influence of our biology, our genes.

There is no such thing as 100% free will, we are modeled and model ourselves in the same time.
^ One might say we make our environment and thus make our own free will.
Besides, what has genetics to do with free will? Wouldn't the premise of free will state that upon what you are aware, you may choose; Not by what is all around but you cannot see, is what you have to choose from. Whether or not you see your options does not necessarily negate free will.

I'm not sure this covers anything and I hope I'm not butting in with absolutely nothing to say.
PS. I didn't read the whole thread.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Anybody who claims Christianity or religion in general is irrational obviously never heard of Natural Theology.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
^ One might say we make our environment and thus make our own free will.
Besides, what has genetics to do with free will? Wouldn't the premise of free will state that upon what you are aware, you may choose; Not by what is all around but you cannot see, is what you have to choose from. Whether or not you see your options does not necessarily negate free will.

I'm not sure this covers anything and I hope I'm not butting in with absolutely nothing to say.
PS. I didn't read the whole thread.

What do you mean what does genetics have to do with this? It has everything to do with this. Our behavior conditions our biology, and in the same time, our biology conditions our behavior (therefor conditions our will, since our will is dependent on our view on reality) It's perfectly symmetrical and makes perfect sense to me.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
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?

There's a reason why the movies began to suck more and more as they progressed.

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.

There is a biological basis for preferences. But, do you honestly believe there is no fundamental difference between a cow's preference for avoiding mushrooms and a society's preference for punishing a pedophile?

Would you not judge a community a 5000 miles away from you that allowed pedophilia to run rampant? Should you not judge them?

In your framework you can say "pedophilia is wrong" but you must always add "or it may not be."

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?

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?

Divine intervention. At least that's what I believe.

I recently made a statement in another thread about this issue, but I'll try to rework it to fit here.
My glasses may limit my ability to see God in the sky... But, if God is in the sky he is not limited and can descend and give a new pair of glasses.

So? That's the truth. Would you believe a lie over a truth if the lie makes you feel better?

No, that's what you do. You believe right and wrong matter when you're framework doesn't really doesn't support a pursuit of truth. You can prefer truth or you can prefer lies, but you can't say someone SHOULD prefer truth.

Religion is a burden on society and responsible for a huge amount of suffering and ignorance in the world today. If that's not a reason to attempt to argue people out of their beliefs, then I don't know what is.

Yes, but without any moral weight behind the suffering, who cares?

Beefeater.... really?!

I think that one's gonna come back to haunt you over and over.

I have faith that it is perfectly consistent.
I believe my current understanding is mostly consistent.
At the very least I'm quite confident that the bible can be shown to be far, far, far more consistent than anti-theists make it out to be.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
There is no proof that the universe was not created. Therefor it is not entirely illogical for one to believe the universe was created.

There is no proof that I am not a girl..therefore it is not entirely illogical for one to believe that...

Or is it?
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
I don't know why I used a double negation in the sentence. It makes it confusing.

And you partially negating my double negation makes it even more confusing. :laugh:
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Dualistic and so, unsubstanciated. Dualism didn't make sense when Descartes first applied his poor talents at philosophy to try to argue its case and it makes even less sense now.

LOL, I forgot how much you despised Descartes. Remind me to plan a Descartes Christmas for you. *tugs your ears*

Real faith sounds pretty but as far as we know it's heavily based on "evolutionary artifacts" such as the "god spot" then there's no meaningful difference. (yes beef, i'm talking in relative terms and assuming it extremely unlikely that domino has access to any future repository of knowledge I don't have access to nor know of)

I CAN FLY!!
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
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.


Either you're wrong or I'm not a sensor.
 

Serendipity

the Dark Prophet of Kualu
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
852
MBTI Type
RAD
What do you mean what does genetics have to do with this? It has everything to do with this. Our behavior conditions our biology, and in the same time, our biology conditions our behavior (therefor conditions our will, since our will is dependent on our view on reality) It's perfectly symmetrical and makes perfect sense to me.

Well, let's begin with saying that I do understand where you are coming from but it's inconsistent, for me, none the less. I wonder what free will constitutes for you?
Whether or not one decides that limited options means I cannot choose from all the options and thus cannot consider myself having free will is odd. I have 100% free will from what I am aware of, whether some decisions sometimes may feel harder than others.

Yes, I have behavioral patterns and some of them are possibly and quite probably outside of my reach that I am unaware of; the ones I do have a sense of awareness however, imo, could only be the options that are open and thus what defines my free will. Then again, some may choose to define this as the illusion of free will and whether this or that is true, I cannot say and I'll never speak of.


I'm not sure I manage to convey what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll sit down and think and try to share it differently but if it is not and you plainly just do not agree, then I would love to be picked to pieces.


Ok. Hold your horses. I guess I created foundations for what a human is without allowing it to be known and did not speak of free will as something independent from being human. Now, I agree that as the essence of the idea of free will is, well, ideal and most probably not correct but, with the mind in hand seeing that which reward systems are in existence... You probably catch the rest anyway.


This may sound odd but for an example: A man is almost asleep but makes a conscious decision to stay awake but in the end he falls asleep without his own permission. Would you say this is a part of what you are saying? Yes, it is absurd.


Or maybe I'm just spinning out into space. lol
 

Perch420

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
381
MBTI Type
NiTi
Enneagram
5w1
There is no proof that the universe was not created. Therefor it is not entirely illogical for one to believe the universe was created.

Ok, but it is illogical to think that Jesus is going to fly on a chariot and save the world from Satan.
 

neptunesnet

man-made
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
1,228
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5&4
Instinctual Variant
sx
There's a reason to believe in a better tommorow; the fact that human progress has been increasing exponentially over the last few hundred years. There's no reason whatsoever to believe in god.

Alright, you Enlightenment idealist you, didn't World War I debunk this myth of "natural" human progression (of things getting better every day in every way)?
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Divine intervention. At least that's what I believe.
Well, one can make it sound nice: every joy you feel is a tiny touch of god; but it still baffles me that such an explanation should satisfy you.

My glasses may limit my ability to see God in the sky... But, if God is in the sky he is not limited and can descend and give a new pair of glasses.
O, I see. The crux remains that you have not become a christian but were raised a christian. You presuppose god, do you not? Or are you really saying that god has given you this second pair of glasses? If so, was his earthly form that of a book; and if it was a book, why do you not believe in Hobbits as well?
 

Perch420

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
381
MBTI Type
NiTi
Enneagram
5w1
Yes, but without any moral weight behind the suffering, who cares?

Morality doesn't need religion. Do you think before Jesus, people were running around raping and skinning each other? The ancient Babylonians and Sumerians were more civil and humane than Christian Europe thousands of years before the latter came into play.

Morality is biologically ingrained into people to preserve the human race. That doesn't mean it has no logical basis, though. All living beings are irreconcilably interconnected, so one living being suffering causes all living beings to suffer. It would be logical, therefore, to minimize suffering in the world.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have faith that it is perfectly consistent.
I believe my current understanding is mostly consistent.

Okay. I can buy that explanation far better than the other.

(Although if you run into someone who actually knows their detailed history and/or archaeology, and throw in a textual critic or three who can chart inherent patterns of evolution with the OT, I think things will get really interesting.)

There is no proof that I am not a girl..therefore it is not entirely illogical for one to believe that...

Define "girl"?

Morality doesn't need religion. Do you think before Jesus, people were running around raping and skinning each other?

When were the Aztecs around again?

All you have to do is read the OT (before Jesus) and the social interactions include rape of both genders, incest, murder, slavery, stoning, fire sacrifice, infanticide, adultery... The entire OT is saturated with it, and not all of it was attributed to the "bad guys" against Israel. Israel itself is represented quite darkly (and with understanding of its own evils) in its own texts.

Cultural myths were full of incest, murder, intrigue, consuming of one's foes, cutting up gods and scattering their pieces. Norse myth, Greek myth, Egyptian myth, Sumerian myth, etc. I mean, I could research all of this to list example after example. If things such as these are embodied in the myths of a culture, what does it say about the culture? I doubt that the Babylonians and Sumerians, despite having an extensive recorded ethical code, didn't have their own share of problems.

All living beings are irreconcilably interconnected, so one living being suffering causes all living beings to suffer. It would be logical, therefore, to minimize suffering in the world.

I agree with that.
 

Perch420

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
381
MBTI Type
NiTi
Enneagram
5w1
Alright, you Enlightenment idealist you, didn't World War I debunk this myth of "natural" human progression (of things getting better every day in every way)?

How so? WWI was fought because vestigial monarchies were unable to deal with the dawn of a new century. WW2 was fought because totalitarianism and vestigial tribalism took control of a population. Both of those things are almost nonexistant today. If anything, this just strengthens my point; that the human race learns from its mistakes and changes the world accordingly.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
There is no "god spot" in the brain.

Tell that to Scientific American.

There are several regions involved. No *one* god spot.

Religion was an early attempt by humans to make sense of the world around them. Almost all ancient cultures had some sort of religious belief, but this isn't because humans are predisposed to religion; it's because humans are predisposed to ask "why?". With science and reason at our disposal, we don't have to make things up to explain the world around us. We don't need religion any more.

That's an opinion only until it's proven concretely. Based on logic steps, correct? Moving from hypothetical to theory to hard proof.

I disagree on the "why". That's not the only reason for believing in something higher than oneself. It may push people to assign "God" to what they themselves cannot explain but we're hardly living in times where schizophrenia is caused by goblins or "humors" anymore.

When I was living in rural Ireland, there was a mystical pall that hung over the place. It wasn't in my mind. The dead die but they don't leave.

In my own home in the States, I found the spot on the floor where my grandmother died even though I had never been told it was there. It was cold and a chill passed through me whenever I walked over it. I asked my mother and she confirmed it as the spot where my grandmother died years before I was born. I would press someone to explain that to me in scientific terms.
 
Top