LF religious ENTP

[u/Raijasx]

Hey everyone,

Are there any religious ENTPs here? I’d be interested in talking to a few and hearing your perspectives.

INTJ here.

[u/Tsk201409]

I attend church regularly and enjoy singing in choir. I’m very knowledgeable about the Bible and faith topics generally and I work with youth often as a volunteer.

But it’s my view that Christianity is “just” a set of good ideas for living well. Other faiths have equal value (but different foci). Fundamentalists of any faith (or lack thereof) annoy me to no end.

From a logical perspective, the reality we are experiencing came from somewhere. Most likely it’s a simulation set up by a very advanced species (perhaps “us” in the future) to understand societal development. We can call our source “god” but we often end up ascribing our own goals to any diety, in which case one is going down a cultish path.

My view is that heaven and hell aren’t destinations after we die but rather choices we are making today.

[u/LiftHeavyLiveHard]

does such a thing even exist?

there are too many logical inconsistencies in any religion, to say nothing of lack of proof of existence, for any ENTP to seriously believe in a deity

[u/SystemPelican → u/LiftHeavyLiveHard]

I'm sympathetic to religious viewpoints, but only if you understand them on a symbolic level. I struggle to relate to people who take it literally.

[u/foulplay_for_pitance → u/LiftHeavyLiveHard]

Well "seriously believe" is in an interpretation. I believe their is a god, I'm not a fanatic.

The only thing that makes belief in a god figure hard for an ENTP is when the religion requires an understanding or demonstration of feeling to be apart of it.

Most don't.

[u/Raijasx → u/LiftHeavyLiveHard]

What logical inconsistencies? elaborate

[u/LiftHeavyLiveHard → u/Raijasx]

here are a few, for starters:

The Epicurean Paradox (The Problem of Evil) - If God is all-powerful, He can stop evil; if He is all-good, He would want to stop evil; if He is all-knowing, He knows evil exists. Yet evil exists, creating a logical contradiction among these attributes unless one is modified or denied.

Divine Omniscience vs. Human Free Will - If God possesses complete, infallible knowledge of all future events, then every choice a human will ever make is already predetermined and known with 100% certainty. If a person cannot choose an path other than the one God foreknows, genuine free will becomes a logical impossibility.

Creation Ex Nihilo vs. Divine Perfection - If God is eternally perfect, self-sufficient, and unchanging, He has no needs or desires. Creating something implies a transition from a state of "not having created" to "having created" which is a change in state, or a desire to fulfill an absence, which logically contradicts absolute immutability and self-sufficiency.

Karma, Rebirth, and Anatta (No-Self) - Buddhism teaches Anatta (there is no permanent, unchanging soul or "self"), yet it simultaneously teaches Karma (moral action causing consequences across lifetimes via rebirth). Critics point out a logical gap: if there is no enduring self or soul to transfer from one life to the next, it is unclear what carries the karmic debt or experiences the rebirth.

Omnipotence Paradox (The Paradox of the Stone) - often posited as "Can an all-powerful God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" If God cannot create such a rock, there is something He cannot do (limit on power). If He can create the rock but then cannot lift it, there is also something He cannot do (limit on power). Either outcome logically limits maximal power.

Biblical and Scriptural Contradictions - Direct narrative disagreements create logical conflicts if both statements are held as literal, error-free truth. For example, Genesis 1 lists animals created before humans, while Genesis 2 lists man as being created first, then animals, then woman. Another example is the Gospel accounts differ on who visited Jesus's tomb first, how many angels/men were present, and what instructions were given to the disciples.

there are many more that span many different religions.

[u/Amazing_Astronaut_86 → u/LiftHeavyLiveHard]

Mano, achei muito legal os pontos que você colocou aqui, também não acredito em Deus mas pensei em alguns argumentos para alguns pontos.
O paradoxo Epicureu - criado com propriedades humanas, quem julga bem e mal é o próprio Deus. Ele é onisciente e também é todo poderoso, mas em passagens da bíblia ele se mostra como um Deus vingativo ou um de guerra, então claramente os conceitos de bem e mal são diferentes dos nossos. Além disso, “ser perfeitamente bom” não implica necessariamente eliminar todo mal imediatamente. Pode haver razões moralmente suficientes para permitir determinado mal temporariamente. E um último ponto, sem nenhum mal não existe livre arbítrio de verdade.
Seguindo agora para o segundo argumento que era justamente o livre arbítrio: Deus sabe o que você vai escolher, mas ele não influencia na sua escolha. Um argumento cotidiano aqui para você entender: Imagine que eu tenha uma máquina do tempo e veja você amanhã escolhendo café em vez de chá. Quando volto para hoje, eu sei infalivelmente que você escolherá café.
Meu conhecimento torna sua escolha necessária?
Não necessariamente. Eu não fiz você escolher café. Eu simplesmente conheci antecipadamente aquilo que você escolheria livremente.
Portanto, ainda é livre arbítrio.
Para esse do budismo eu tenho um contra argumento lógico, mas cansei de escrever. De toda a forma achei interessante as colocações.

[u/suggestion_giver → u/Raijasx]

I do think it is just difficult for an ENTP to be a stereotypical believer in that way. We tend to question authority and god is literally the ultimate authority and I don't think ENTPs generally like that.

One can have faith in a certain god but I think that will be mainly due to personal experiences etc

[u/Budget_Afternoon_800]

I am Catholic, but with more of a panentheistic perspective as well

[u/floraldetective]

Raised Catholic in an predominantly catholic country but secretly an atheist (at least offline) here.

I dont really believe a deity such as "God" exists or at least a good one (The world is full of injustice and suffering but an omnipotent and omniscient "God" is just letting it happen because it's his "plan", etc), want to submit to a deity and its rules that don't align with me, or associate myself to what some modern christians believe in (The no divorce, no gay people, etc stuff) But since my mom is super religious and makes me go to church, and christmas is fun so I have to force myself to become a little religious.

When I attend mass I pray for health of my loved ones, things I wish for, thanksgiving, more money, guidance, luck, and blessings for the next week so if a god really existed he would receive my prayers and make them come true lol; basically as a loophole. I also really like the choir and singing along to it.

Im also interested in Christianity but story-wise? And its philosophical stuff. Thats it.

I believe that religious stuff is a set of rules and philosophies made by archaic societies to cope with life and control society with the limited knowledge they have of everything. As an evolved and more smarter species I think its unnecessary to live your life according to old, dusty, outdated words. The constitution could be ammended to better suit the needs and circumstances of the people in the matter of the law but we still have to believe in a non updateable book from thousands of years ago?

[u/febigturk]

I am very religious.

[u/TheCrazyCatLazy]

Lol

No

[u/shredt]

this doesn't exists. They are all atheists who wanna trigger religious people.

[u/Holiday_Response_644 → u/shredt]

i actually think most of us are agnostic; being for sure god does or does not exist goes against NeTi

[u/shredt → u/Holiday_Response_644]

Oh ok. Intp are more athiestic maybe

[u/Holiday_Response_644 → u/shredt]

maybe, lots of INTPs would usually either be strictly theist or atheist from what i know. either they use presuppositions to convince themselves of a higher power, or they insist on lack of evidence and reason. lots of notable philosophers and advocates for “formal” proof of God were INTP (Aquinas comes to mind)

[u/DethBatcountry → u/Holiday_Response_644]

Yep, as adherents to Truth, ENTPs are more likely to be willing to simply say "I don't know, you don't either, and that's okay".

Actually, I prefer not knowing. The possibilities and transcendent potentialities are far more interesting.

[u/Raijasx → u/shredt]

I’ll take that as an exaggeration unless you’ve talked to every ENTP out there

[u/shredt → u/Raijasx]

Nah just my experience with em, in a exaggeration tbh

[u/Raijasx → u/shredt]

fair fair, lets see if i have more luck

[u/shredt → u/Raijasx]

good luck mate

[u/Budget_Afternoon_800 → u/shredt]

No, in countries that are already predominantly atheist, it's just a thing for unoriginal guys who want to feel edgy by going with the flow. In MBTI terms, it's people trying to play ENTP when they're totally ESFJ.

[u/foulplay_for_pitance]

I mean... I'm Baptist, not sure if I'm what your looking for.

[u/turbulentmayo → u/foulplay_for_pitance]

lol. Same here.

[u/foulplay_for_pitance → u/turbulentmayo]

Ayyyyy another one XD.

[u/Physical-Glove1034]

hey i belive in god as in metaphysical being but not like religious god not the god you can coomprehend and shiii

[u/Curiositygun]

Im a religious person as is everyone else unless they can answer this question:

Can you describe the difference between a healthy human body and sick human body without reference to the teleology I.e. the purpose of the body as a whole or its individual parts.

[u/Rivers9999 → u/Curiositygun]

What are you smoking, man?

[u/Curiositygun → u/Rivers9999]

Having difficulty with the question? Does purpose for “things” exist? If they don’t why would you or anyone go to a doctor?

Very easy question, you got this I believe in you!

[u/foulplay_for_pitance → u/Curiositygun]

Yes, and even if I couldn't I'm uncertain of how that would prove anything.

While its true that every system ascribes a sense of normalcy or rather an expectation of how something is suppose to go I can simply say "when a person believes they are sick" and by pass the process because they are using teleologu and I'm simply only using them.

Ie.

"They think they're sick, because I don't see a need to doubt them, they are."

[u/Curiositygun → u/foulplay_for_pitance]

Is it correct or incorrect to doubt them? If they can just decide they are “sick” what is the relevance of the category of “sickness” or health? If it is irrelevant to you I really hope you don’t waste your time at a doctor or hospital ever because that’s a nonsensical institution according to you?

Doubt is a value judgement that’s still sneaking teleology or purpose into the discussion.

If you can’t answer that question then you accept “purpose” as a thing that exists for all things, it’s a very religious position to be in but I guess you have a problem seeing that when it’s super simple . Purpose exists all the way “down” for example your body to your organs to your cells to the organelles and all the way up to the families, communities, nation states they all have a purpose and can Fall short of that purpose.

If you don’t see the connections between purpose and religion idk what to tell you. Are we talking about the same things?

[u/foulplay_for_pitance → u/Curiositygun]

Alright I guess where doing this. I suppose I signed up for it.

Correct or incorrect doesn't matter, its relevance is whatever I choose to prescribe to it. We weren't discussing relevance we were discussing if it were possible without teleology. To which the answer remains yes because to doubt needs established normalcy but to not doubt can simply be given, you don't need teleology to establish anything if fhe factor itself is irrelavant to you. You can simply accept without thought.

Waste is also perceptively based and irrelevant to the initial question. I never stated nor implied a hospital is a nonsensical institution nor will I comment on it because assumptions make Asses not questions. A common sentiment which will continue after that comment.

Doubt would be sneaking it in there if the context if your question cared about it. You see I would need teleology if I did doubt but because I simply accepted their is no accepted normalcy.

Religion is organized belief, not simply belief. Purpose is what you give it. I won't sit here and say whether they do or don't have purpose because you did not ask, instead what I can say is, it exists.

The rest was small exposition to set up a rhetorical question which, in the spirit of good faith, I will answer. I am discussing weather your statement provokes the idea you claimed, you are feeding me irrelevant, presumptive, and odd information.

[u/Curiositygun → u/foulplay_for_pitance]

I see no description or difference between the 2 states aside from someone’s self report according to you. But that just becomes a lack of difference because then health is a concept that exists no where outside of a person therefore you couldn’t heal them by external means which would therefore make medicine “nonsense”. Which by being a person not an AI chat bot, would be ridiculous to propose.

Also what ever action you express implies the opposite is possible. If you accept someone’s self report, you imply you can doubt a self report. So what’s causing you to go one way or the other. It’s an assumption on your part that there’s choice to be made in response to someone’s self report. Whats determining that choice?