# an other INTJ/INTP christians



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> There are a ton of unexplained phenomena in our world. But to simply put a "*GOD DID IT*" stamp on everything we don't understand is irrational, _it shows the same level of thought that cavemen and very early civilizations used to understand their world_. Compared to the expected age of the world humans are a relatively new addition, we are surely going to encounter plenty of seemingly unexplainable phenomena, you get your *GOD DID IT* stamp ready, and those of us with scientific minds will try to actually come up with legitimate answers.


I think Christianity has suffered a lot from Christians being unwilling to change their attitudes, especially in the past, but also in modern times where some Christians still believe the world is less than 10000 years old. It is clearly not enough anymore to simply say 'God did it' for any unexplained phenomena, as science has proven time and time again. However, I don't think religion and science are contradictory - science explains 'how' and religion explains 'why'.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Religion doesn't explain 'why' in a rational manner. Like I said before, things claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof. I would liken religion of today to explaining to a small child where babies come from. They might be too immature and young to understand it, so we invent stories about a stork dropping babies off. People don't like thinking about the fact that there very likely is no 'why', at least not one that we know about, or are close to discovering, so, like the stork story, it's a way to give people purpose and meaning. It's therapeutic, really.

Let me explain something to the Christians(This message is NOT intended for those who simply believe there is a god, I'm not sure whether or not I believe in god either, but the Christians in this thread). ALL of you are athiests. Don't get what I mean? Read this quote, seriously think about it, and you will understand.

"_I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours._"


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

I was just trying to make the distinction between religion explaining, eg. why we are here (God created us) and science explaining how (evolution, the big bang, the formation of the planets and stars etc.). Hence religion and science are complimentary not contradictory, although there is no need to believe in religion, where there is a need to believe in science.

The quote you posted is interesting, and I do have reasons for only believing in Christianity. Christianity differs a lot from other religions; you don't have to 'do' anything in order to be saved (unlike Islam in particular), the whole concept of 'God' in Christianity is different from any other religions' concept of God (except for Judaism, but Christianity is seen as an extension of Judaism). I completely understand why people would not believe in God, and I am fine with that, just as many atheists see nothing wrong with me believing there is a God - I am not here to convert anyone, just to let people know why I believe what I believe.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Pillow said:


> I was just trying to make the distinction between religion explaining, eg. why we are here (God created us) and science explaining how (evolution, the big bang, the formation of the planets and stars etc.). Hence religion and science are complimentary not contradictory, although there is no need to believe in religion, where there is a need to believe in science.
> 
> The quote you posted is interesting, and I do have reasons for only believing in Christianity. Christianity differs a lot from other religions; you don't have to 'do' anything in order to be saved (unlike Islam in particular), the whole concept of 'God' in Christianity is different from any other religions' concept of God (except for Judaism, but Christianity is seen as an extension of Judaism). I completely understand why people would not believe in God, and I am fine with that, just as many atheists see nothing wrong with me believing there is a God - I am not here to convert anyone, just to let people know why I believe what I believe.


But, the thing is, there is plenty that you have to do to be a Christian. Primarily, you *have* to believe in the doctrine in order to be rewarded in the afterlife. You can be as good of a person as you want, do as many good things as humanly possible, help as many people as you possibly can, but without simply believing, you will burn in hell for all of eternity. Like I posed earlier, some part of your god has to like sending people to hell, otherwise he would prove unequivocally that he exists and wouldn't leave it up to his "prophets" to get his message out. People say that he gave us "free will" but what exactly is so free about it? We are free to not believe in him and be sent to burn for all of eternity? That doesn't seem very free to me.

God explicitly states in the 10 commandments that humans are not to worship other gods aside from him. Why would he say that? Like I said before, why not just prove himself to exist, then people worshiping other gods would never happen. When I used to go to church, people would always to tell me that our god was a jealous god. Why do people want to believe that our god, the creator of the heavens and the earth, would display such a petty human emotion? I've gotten over jealousy, so have many people that I know, are we morally superior to your God?

Why is it, that countries ran under religious laws always seem to be the most evil/cruel? Look at the middle east, and other countries with Sharia law, look at early America, look at Great Britain during the Crusades and dark ages. Let me explain why. Christians project the best of human nature away from humans, thereby creating God, who according to you is everything humans are not. Nearly all of the Christian God's attributes are human qualities. According to you, god is not only the most just and the most loving, god _is_ love, god _is_ justice. That's why I believe that very much human debauchery that you see in places that are highly religious is an inevitable result of displacing the best of humanity away from humans.



Arbite said:


> I'm actually surprised at the amount of INTx christians. Simply because I would think that most NT's would have the intelligence to see the faults in organized religion.


All the NTP's I see on this forum claiming to be religious surprise me. The NTJ's don't really, NTJ's tend to accept the world for what it is, and usually don't have a problem with adhering to certain traditional values, as long as they don't get in the way of the NTJ accomplishing their objectives. NTP's are not like that. NTP's don't see the world for what it is only, we see the world for what it should/could be compared to how it is. We use ration and logic to construct our world views, and to create our unique image of how the world should be. We require a rational explanation for each and every thing we do. If a rational explanation can't be given, we are immediately skeptical, even if we don't reject it all at once. This is why, even when I identified as a Christian, I still wasn't sure whether I believed it or not.

Look up quotes by famously known NTP's they reek of a deep dissatisfaction with the way the world around them operates, especially the farther back you go.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> But, the thing is, there is plenty that you have to do to be a Christian. Primarily, you *have* to believe in the doctrine in order to be rewarded in the afterlife. You can be as good of a person as you want, do as many good things as humanly possible, help as many people as you possibly can, but without simply believing, you will burn in hell for all of eternity. Like I posed earlier, some part of your god has to like sending people to hell, otherwise he would prove unequivocally that he exists and wouldn't leave it up to his "prophets" to get his message out. People say that he gave us "free will" but what exactly is so free about it? We are free to not believe in him and be sent to burn for all of eternity? That doesn't seem very free to me.
> 
> God explicitly states in the 10 commandments that humans are not to worship other gods aside from him. Why would he say that? Like I said before, why not just prove himself to exist, then people worshiping other gods would never happen. When I used to go to church, people would always to tell me that our god was a jealous god. Why do people want to believe that our god, the creator of the heavens and the earth, would display such a petty human emotion? I've gotten over jealousy, so have many people that I know, are we morally superior to your God?
> 
> Why is it, that countries ran under religious laws always seem to be the most evil/cruel? Look at the middle east, and other countries with Sharia law, look at early America, look at Great Britain during the Crusades and dark ages. Let me explain why. Christians project the best of human nature away from humans, thereby creating God, who according to you is everything humans are not. Nearly all of the Christian God's attributes are human qualities. According to you, god is not only the most just and the most loving, god _is_ love, god _is_ justice. That's why I believe that very much human debauchery that you see in places that are highly religious is an inevitable result of displacing the best of humanity away from humans.


You say there is plenty you have to do to be a Christian, but really you only have to believe that Jesus died for you. Yes in the old testament there were the 10 commandments, but those rules are to do with the survival Judaism. How do you propose Judaism would have survived as a religion if God allowed them to believe in other gods? It would have gotten very confusing with everyone believing in their own version of God, and no one would know what he is really like. I would understand your point if every religion had the same concept of who God is, but they don't.

Christians believe the Bible is a guide for how to live your life, and in general if you follow the basic principles of the Bible (in particular the greatest commandment 'love your neighbour as you love yourself') your life ends up better for it. I have tried it both ways. Heaven is simply a place where you live with God for eternity, Hell is a place where you don't live with God. If you didn't want to live with him while you were on Earth, what right do you have to live with him for eternity? God doesn't want to punish people but he gives us the choice. If there was proof of God, then we wouldn't have a choice, as with science. I know there are some people who deny science but they have flimsy reasons at best.

The reason God told us not to worship other gods is because other gods come with a different system of beliefs, many of which conflict with Christianity. I think the idea of God being a jealous God is more to do with him being jealous in a righteous sense, for example if I saw my husband kissing another woman I would be jealous and I would have a right to be. It is not jealousy in the sense that you are talking of, and it is not the same emotion as coveting someone else's stuff. It's like how getting angry is a sin, but getting angry when you see people in Africa starving because of their corrupt governments is not a sin - it is the sort of anger that encourages you to make the world a better place.

I don't believe in countries being run by religious law, as humans can't be trusted to do it right. Personally I think Islam is a cult, but that is another matter. The crusades were religiously sanctioned, but that does not mean they were in accordance with Christianity, they were much more political than religious. All of the bad things I know of which are supposedly from Christianity are actually from people either misinterpreting Christianity, or using it for their own ends and means and not God's.

To be honest, I have never been sure what people mean when they say 'God is love' etc. I suppose it is to do with Him embodying that quality, but I don't know how anything can _be_ love, except for love itself. Christians believe that the best way to live is to live like Jesus. Do you think the world would be a worse place if everyone actually managed to do this?

When I was a teenager I also identified as Christian, but wasn't sure whether I actually believed or not. It took a lot of searching and reading for me to sort out all the problems I had with Christianity.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

There are specific rules in everything. Although he demands obedience, even that would not do. To God, what is important is the relationship you have with him. 

The story of King David made many mistakes but was still loved dearly by God. What he had was complete and utter faith. 

I should probably read the entire thread before I say anything more. Even though, I think it's difficult for me to explain Christianity/God to another NT because I really feel one must experience it. There are many roads to get to Christianity but all have one thing in common--- a complete weakening of the self (be it mental/physical/emotional). 

I understand every argument from an atheist perspective because I was there. But I highly doubt an atheist can truly understand my perspective when they've never been there. And that's ok. 

To me, usually the ones who get riled up and spout "BECAUSE GOD DID IT!" are those who were not really interested in theories to begin with or perhaps never had any inclination to be curious about other things outside the Bible.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Pillow said:


> You say there is plenty you have to do to be a Christian, but really you only have to believe that Jesus died for you. Yes in the old testament there were the 10 commandments, but those rules are to do with the survival Judaism. How do you propose Judaism would have survived as a religion if God allowed them to believe in other gods? It would have gotten very confusing with everyone believing in their own version of God, and no one would know what he is really like. I would understand your point if every religion had the same concept of who God is, but they don't.


What you are saying, is not what the bible says. If the bible said that your relationship with christ is all that matters I could accept this as a valid point. Also, _you did not refute my claim_. It is still true that you need to believe the doctrine in order to get into heaven. Like I said, what is so moral about your god displaying such a petty human emotion and passing it off as if it is in any way moral? No amount of good can change the fact that not believing=eternal suffering. It makes no sense at all, and really is batshit crazy.



Pillow said:


> Christians believe the Bible is a guide for how to live your life, and in general if you follow the basic principles of the Bible (in particular the greatest commandment 'love your neighbour as you love yourself') your life ends up better for it. I have tried it both ways. Heaven is simply a place where you live with God for eternity, Hell is a place where you don't live with God. If you didn't want to live with him while you were on Earth, what right do you have to live with him for eternity? God doesn't want to punish people but he gives us the choice. If there was proof of God, then we wouldn't have a choice, as with science. I know there are some people who deny science but they have flimsy reasons at best.


 Hell is where satan is, the cause of all evil. Hell is where God sends good people who don't believe in him to get punished. Hell is where in theory all the bad people who don't believe in god go, and somehow, you think it's justified to send good people there who happen to be brought up around the wrong beliefs? Crazy. The bible is not simply a moral framework, that is your individual interpretation of it. The bible is seen by people as *the word of god*. If, the bible was scientifically proven to be the word of god, you bet your ass I would be doing everything it says, stoning non-virgin women to death, telling women who wear pants that they are an abomination, having slaves, the whole nine. But it isn't.

I tell people this all the time. If what was in the Quran was scientifically proven to be the only way to have a good afterlife, and was scientifically proven to be the word of god, then I would be a religious terrorist, plain and simple. Are those people inherently wrong? Or, are they like you, people who believe in what the book is telling them. Religious terrorists, as far as their basic personality traits are no different than regular religious people. They simply happened to grow up in a place where the religion was less socially acceptable to those of us who grew up in more rational societies.



Pillow said:


> The reason God told us not to worship other gods is because other gods come with a different system of beliefs, many of which conflict with Christianity. I think the idea of God being a jealous God is more to do with him being jealous in a righteous sense, for example if I saw my husband kissing another woman I would be jealous and I would have a right to be. It is not jealousy in the sense that you are talking of, and it is not the same emotion as coveting someone else's stuff. It's like how getting angry is a sin, but getting angry when you see people in Africa starving because of their corrupt governments is not a sin - it is the sort of anger that encourages you to make the world a better place.


The thing is, you are an atheist. When it comes to the flying spaghetti monster, you are an atheist. When it comes to the lord Xenu, you are an atheist. When it comes to lord Jashin you are an atheist. I am as well. The difference between you and I is that you believe in one more god than I do. When you come to a full understanding of why you don't believe in the gods I just listed above, you will understand why I don't believe in yours. That is the only way I can respond to this. 

Also, this upsets me. You make it seem like without religion, there wouldn't be good people on earth. When people say things like this it seems I should have less faith in humanity than I currently do.



Pillow said:


> I don't believe in countries being run by religious law, as humans can't be trusted to do it right.* Personally I think Islam is a cult*, but that is another matter. The crusades were religiously sanctioned, but that does not mean they were in accordance with Christianity, they were much more political than religious. All of the bad things I know of which are supposedly from Christianity are actually from people either misinterpreting Christianity, or using it for their own ends and means and not God's.


I could argue that you are misinterpreting Christianity as well. You pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow(like many others) and that is because you have adopted a rational approach to life and realize that to literally do everything that the bible says you should do would be downright evil. The people responsible for the crusades could argue that you were misinterpreting Christianity as well. It's all about individual interpretation. Any time someone does something evil in the name of Christianity it does not mean that they are interpreting it incorrectly, it just means they are interpreting it differently than you.

And to say you think Islam is a cult is pretty ironic. The only difference between Islam and Christianity in your life is that in your youth 'all the big people' were telling you to be a Christian rather than a Muslim. If you had grown up in the middle east you would likely be a Muslim. Religion is incredibly arbitrary. What you fail to understand is that Christianity is a cult as well. It is just more socially acceptable where you were raised. That is literally the only difference.



Pillow said:


> To be honest, I have never been sure what people mean when they say 'God is love' etc. I suppose it is to do with Him embodying that quality, but I don't know how anything can _be_ love, except for love itself. Christians believe that the best way to live is to live like Jesus. Do you think the world would be a worse place if everyone actually managed to do this?


"If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people." (Matthew 20:26-28, CEV) -Jesus Christ. Do I think the world would be a better place if people tried to live up to the mythologized and idealized concept of Christ? Most likely. Do I think the world would be a better place if people tried to live like the christ of the bible, who condoned slavery, absolutely not.

Let me ask you this, do you think the world would be a better place if everyone in the world strove to live by the teachings of Captain Planet? Most likely. The fact of the matter is, you believe that the only way people can do good things, and improve the quality of the world is by trying to live how Jesus said to live. But, you are doing what I talked about in my post. Christianity takes all of the good qualities that humans have and removes them from humans, as if it's a good thing.

Let me ask you a question, what if someone lived their whole life helping people, feeding orphans treating the sick, and giving money to the poor, but they grew up in China and were raised Buddhist, even though they lived their whole life doing great things, do you think they deserve to burn in hell because they didn't happen to be exposed to the correct religion early in life? Let me stress this again. *THERE IS NOTHING MORAL ABOUT THAT.* Not a single thing. Your god needs to revamp this whole belief=salvation thing, it's psychotic.



Pillow said:


> When I was a teenager I also identified as Christian, but wasn't sure whether I actually believed or not. It took a lot of searching and reading for me to sort out all the problems I had with Christianity.


Tell me, what was it that changed your opinion? What did you find that made you want to embrace Christianity? Was it the fact that it made your parents happy? Was it the fact that it's more socially acceptable? Was it the fact that it is easier to fly under people's radar by telling them you're a Christian? That's why I tell people I'm a christian.



Aila8 said:


> The story of King David made many mistakes but was still loved dearly by God. What he had was complete and utter faith.
> 
> I should probably read the entire thread before I say anything more. Even though, I think it's difficult for me to explain Christianity/God to another NT because I really feel one must experience it. There are many roads to get to Christianity but all have one thing in common--- *a complete weakening of the self *(be it mental/physical/emotional).
> 
> I understand every argument from an atheist perspective because I was there. But I highly doubt an atheist can truly understand my perspective when they've never been there. And that's ok.


By your king david logic, Hitler, who was responsible for the death of millions, could have apologized to god on his deathbed, and accepted christ and gotten into heaven. But, an atheistic Jew(in the ethnic sense, not the religious sense) could have been a good person their whole life and gone to hell. Hitler is responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people, would go to heaven, but the jew who had his property, family, dignity, and humanity stripped from him would go to hell. Once again, if any Christians believe their religion to be moral they are simply covering their ears and shouting "LALALALALA!!!" over all the contradicting evidence.

What you call a complete weakening of the self, I call a suspension of reason. Once you suspend reason to believe in something irrational you can rationalize it to any means you see fit. Like I've said before "_Blind faith is a rather ironic gift to give to the creator of human intelligence_". If there is a god he has to be amused at the fact that there are people who think this shit makes sense.

No, I have been there, ignorance is bliss. And when that ignorance leads you to believe that after you die you spend your remaining days in a paradise with everyone you've ever loved, I imagine it's *really *bliss. What a lot of religions do, is they exploit man's natural fear of death in order to scare humanity into believing something that is asserted with zero evidence. Like I said before "Something asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" That's why when I tell you I have an invisible dragon in my bedroom, you immediately know that it isn't true. However, if I had an army that truly believed in my tale about the dragon, and killed any and everyone who dare challenge my claim for thousands of years, even after said army went away you better believe that people would still believe in MartyMcFly1's dragon.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> What you are saying, is not what the bible says. If the bible said that your relationship with christ is all that matters I could accept this as a valid point. Also, _you did not refute my claim_. It is still true that you need to believe the doctrine in order to get into heaven. Like I said, what is so moral about your god displaying such a petty human emotion and passing it off as if it is in any way moral? No amount of good can change the fact that not believing=eternal suffering. It makes no sense at all, and really is batshit crazy.
> 
> Hell is where satan is, the cause of all evil. Hell is where God sends good people who don't believe in him to get punished. Hell is where in theory all the bad people who don't believe in god go, and somehow, you think it's justified to send good people there who happen to be brought up around the wrong beliefs? Crazy. The bible is not simply a moral framework, that is your individual interpretation of it. The bible is seen by people as *the word of god*. If, the bible was scientifically proven to be the word of god, you bet your ass I would be doing everything it says, stoning non-virgin women to death, telling women who wear pants that they are an abomination, having slaves, the whole nine. But it isn't.



John 3:16 (New International Version, ©2011)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Also in a lot of Paul's letters in the NT, he tells people that they aren't bound by the Mosaic law anymore, look up Sola Fide on wiki (unless you were raised Catholic, they don't believe in this, but Protestants do).

You only have to believe that Jesus died for your sins, and ask him to forgive you. Personally I agree with CS Lewis when he says (paraphrasing from memory) that nothing in the Bible explicitly says that you have to be Christian to go to Heaven. John 3.16 says you can only be saved _through_ Jesus, so maybe God has a way of working out who should go to Heaven based on how you lived your life. For example, if you were raised in a Muslim family, it is very difficult to leave the religion and you are actively discouraged from questioning the religion. Muslims are clearly at a disadvantage as they can't even look at other religions to see if they are better. So maybe if there was a Muslim who lived a good life and was faithful to Allah, God (being omniscient) would look into the Muslim's heart and see that he should go to Heaven. The same could apply to someone who becomes an atheist because he was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family who were completely irrational in their beliefs.

God loves everyone, but He is also completely just and fair, and he has given us as much proof as he can while still preserving our free will.

The stuff in the OT applied to Judaism, and was primarily to preserve it as a religion, uninfluenced by other religions. It was also much more relevant to that time as Jesus had not died for us yet, so humans had to pay for their sins in another way. In the NT, we see that Jesus was the start of a new covenant between humans and God, where you don't have to follow the Mosaic laws and don't have to sacrifice animals etc. (see many of Paul's letters).




MartyMcFly1 said:


> I tell people this all the time. If what was in the Quran was scientifically proven to be the only way to have a good afterlife, and was scientifically proven to be the word of god, then I would be a religious terrorist, plain and simple. Are those people inherently wrong? Or, are they like you, people who believe in what the book is telling them. Religious terrorists, as far as their basic personality traits are no different than regular religious people. They simply happened to grow up in a place where the religion was less socially acceptable to those of us who grew up in more rational societies.


Have you looked into the Quran at all? Even if it was true, I'd rather go to Hell than believe in a God like that. I think we should leave the Quran out of this as Mohammed was most likely a schizophrenic (look up the symptoms and you'll see what I mean) and Islam is a cult.

Is Islam a cult? - WikiIslam




MartyMcFly1 said:


> The thing is, you are an atheist. When it comes to the flying spaghetti monster, you are an atheist. When it comes to the lord Xenu, you are an atheist. When it comes to lord Jashin you are an atheist. I am as well. The difference between you and I is that you believe in one more god than I do. When you come to a full understanding of why you don't believe in the gods I just listed above, you will understand why I don't believe in yours. That is the only way I can respond to this.
> 
> Also, this upsets me. You make it seem like without religion, there wouldn't be good people on earth. When people say things like this it seems I should have less faith in humanity than I currently do.


I agree with you about me being an atheist to all religions except Christianity, but I don't see the relevance. I understand why you wouldn't believe in Christianity and, like I said, I am not trying to convert you. I am just trying to have a rational debate, don't get so offended!

I didn't say that there would be no good people without religion, and I am sorry if you inferred that from what I wrote. I was simply trying to say that if everyone tried to act like Jesus, whether religious or not, the world would be a nicer place. Of course there are many good non-religious people, and there are many bad religious people, I can't see why you thought I was saying otherwise.




MartyMcFly1 said:


> I could argue that you are misinterpreting Christianity as well. You pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow(like many others) and that is because you have adopted a rational approach to life and realize that to literally do everything that the bible says you should do would be downright evil. The people responsible for the crusades could argue that you were misinterpreting Christianity as well. It's all about individual interpretation. Any time someone does something evil in the name of Christianity it does not mean that they are interpreting it incorrectly, it just means they are interpreting it differently than you.
> 
> And to say you think Islam is a cult is pretty ironic. The only difference between Islam and Christianity in your life is that in your youth 'all the big people' were telling you to be a Christian rather than a Muslim. If you had grown up in the middle east you would likely be a Muslim. Religion is incredibly arbitrary. What you fail to understand is that Christianity is a cult as well. It is just more socially acceptable where you were raised. That is literally the only difference.


I don't pick and choose which parts of Christianity to follow. To be honest, you don't seem very educated in Christianity, or maybe you have only read the OT? I think I addressed most of the points in this part of your post above.




MartyMcFly1 said:


> "If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people." (Matthew 20:26-28, CEV) -Jesus Christ. Do I think the world would be a better place if people tried to live up to the mythologized and idealized concept of Christ? Most likely. Do I think the world would be a better place if people tried to live like the christ of the bible, who condoned slavery, absolutely not.


In my version of the Bible it replaces 'slave' with 'servant'. If we all worked towards serving others (ie. looking out for the interests of others, not just our own, then yes I think the world would be a better place. The main point of this quote is that you shouldn't put yourself before others. This passage is not condoning slavery.




MartyMcFly1 said:


> Let me ask you this, do you think the world would be a better place if everyone in the world strove to live by the teachings of Captain Planet? Most likely. The fact of the matter is, you believe that the only way people can do good things, and improve the quality of the world is by trying to live how Jesus said to live. But, you are doing what I talked about in my post. Christianity takes all of the good qualities that humans have and removes them from humans, as if it's a good thing.


Please stop putting words in my mouth.




MartyMcFly1 said:


> Let me ask you a question, what if someone lived their whole life helping people, feeding orphans treating the sick, and giving money to the poor, but they grew up in China and were raised Buddhist, even though they lived their whole life doing great things, do you think they deserve to burn in hell because they didn't happen to be exposed to the correct religion early in life? Let me stress this again. *THERE IS NOTHING MORAL ABOUT THAT.* Not a single thing. Your god needs to revamp this whole belief=salvation thing, it's psychotic.


I discussed this above.




MartyMcFly1 said:


> Tell me, what was it that changed your opinion? What did you find that made you want to embrace Christianity? Was it the fact that it made your parents happy? Was it the fact that it's more socially acceptable? Was it the fact that it is easier to fly under people's radar by telling them you're a Christian? That's why I tell people I'm a christian.


This being a personality forum, I don't know any INTJ's who would do something just to make their parents happy, or just to conform to social norms. I don't know where you're from but I'm from England, where basically no one is Christian. I only have one Christian friend, all my other friends are atheists (believe in no god(s)), but they respect that I have my beliefs and I respect that they have theirs. I did Physics at uni and I was the only Christian in my year. Telling people I am a Christian makes them more likely to reject me without even getting to know me.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

Why do you ask? Are you wanting to know if you are not alone? Of course you are not alone. There are a lot of INT christians. I think your belief system has more to do with your environment culture than your MBTI temperment. I'm christian too BTW.


----------



## MachinegunDojo (Dec 27, 2009)

INTP
Male
Born and raised as Catholic, forced to become "confirmed" in high school.... agnostic or something now. Guess it wasn't a good confirmation?


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

I can understand people having problems with religion in general, specially Ns, but putting out claims that there's no "reason" to believe in God or any evidence for his existence shows that you're either

1) arrogant
or
2) short sighted

Either way it shows that you're rather pissed of and you channel your anger by attacking what you perceive to be the "root" of religious thought and claiming it has no basis.

One of the favorite arguments of atheists that I see used over and over again is the "gaps" argument. "We have a scientific explanation for X therefor attributing it to God is stupid".

As if when I point out to us humans and say that our very existence is evidence for God, as if I'm saying "God conjured us up magically in an instant out of nothing and that's how we know God exists". Or as if when I point out to the mysteries of the universe - as if I'm saying "look this can't be explained at all so therefor God did it". 

This is really silly.

In short the "gaps" argument is a very bad strawman attack.

Here's a thought experiment that aims to show why the "gaps" argument doesn't work at all.

Two persons, A and B. A argues there's no such thing as human intellect. B trying to argue otherwise, but to no avail.

A: There's no evidence that any human has any reasoning power.
B: But look at the human civilization. Human build things, like computers, that do amazing things.
A: No no, I know how computers work, it's all electrons and wires; human minds are not involved at all.
B: How is that?
A: See, when you click a button on the keyboard, a signal is sent to the operating system, and that signal gets forwarded to the active program, and in that signal contains information about what character that key represents, and then the program prints that character at the current cursor position. It's all scientific and well understood process, there are no humans involved.
B: But I never said that humans actually go in there and move these signals themselves. It's just that the existence of such machines proves that humans have a high intellectual ability to build such things.
A: Ah, there you are, employing the "human-mind of the gaps" fallacy. Look, just because I don't know yet how these machines came to existence doesn't prove your point.
B: But I know: humans built them.
A: No no, they are built in factories. In these factories, all the various pieces get assembled and put together by a delicate process. Our knowledge is now so advanced that I can even describe this process for you in great detail. There's no need to appeal for any intelligent forces at all.
B: OK look, you're not getting it. Who do you think built those factories? Who made the programs that receive and interpret the information?
A: Why are you asking "who"? Why assume someone did it at all? We have verifiable scientific explanations; you'd only ask the "who" question if you're an ignorant cave man.

Basically A here represents the atheist mentality of assuming a-priori (and quite unjustifiably) there what we see is all there is; and that there's nothing higher out there.

OK, so we can't define God, so what? Can you define Time? Can you even define what the human consciousness is? What is this thing we feel .. our "awareness" .. that "subjective experience" thing? What the hell is it? Can you define it (without referring to itself in the definition)? I'm even having a hard time referring to it; we don't even have a proper name for it. If A were to contend that there's no such thing exists at all, would he be right? If you should reject things you don't understand or can't define, then we must reject the existence of time, higher dimensions, and awareness/consciousness. 

And actually for this reason, if your sole purpose is to fight religion, then atheism actually carries a heavy unneeded baggage, which in the long term doesn't help at all in your goal of driving people away from religion. You're basically presenting people with two options: 1) Your religion is true 2) There's no God and no higher purpose at all and we're all just a lump of material on a tiny peck of dust and there's nothing beyond that.

Well if that's your offer, no wonder people choose to stick to #1.

The agnostic's position is much more honest and humble IMO, as he realizes that the topic is beyond his comprehension.

Oh and btw, comparing God to an invisible dragon and an invisible pink unicorn is just plain stupid and shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. So if you find yourself resorting to this argument, you better not argue at all.

And actually, belief in religion is *not* like belief in harry potter novels. Harry Potter novels are works of fiction and not in the "yea it's obvious" sense, but the work itself asserts itself as a pure fiction/fantasy. But in reality if you think about it, it's not entirely impossible. Is it impossible to imagine a device that lets you ride it and then it flies? Does it require suspension of reason to believe that in the future, it will be possible for us to invent such a device and give it the shape of a stick? If you think this requires suspension of reason, then pause for a minute and contemplate the modern cellphone: a small object that you can hold in your palms and use it to talk to people far far away, across the oceans, instantaneously. Surely it would seem absurd for people 1000 years ago to imagine such a thing; but it's possible, and believing in it does not require one to suspend his reason. So while Harry Potter is purely a work of fiction, not all of its contents is necessarily irrational. If a person came from the future and said that in the future they have "flying sticks", I wouldn't find that hard to believe.

I don't believe the stories in the Bible but I want to point out that these kinds of arguments are stupid and counter-productive.


----------



## kiskadee (Jan 9, 2009)

INTP
Christian
Female



striker161 said:


> Hmm, something isn't right here. Perhaps you need to reassess your MBTI. Try this site. It only takes 60 seconds to complete. Perhaps you're an INFJ?
> 
> Socionics Type Assistant TURBO


Statements like these are both irrational and typist.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

hasenj said:


> I can understand people having problems with religion in general, specially Ns, but putting out claims that there's no "reason" to believe in God or any evidence for his existence shows that you're either
> 
> 1) arrogant
> or
> ...


This is quite possibly the best post in this whole thread. Thank you


----------



## striker161 (Mar 26, 2011)

Grish said:


> Statements like these are both irrational and typist.


hardly irrational, but most definitely typist.

obviously believe in the jewish bible's version of the creation of the universe, or a god, is irrational. thus, i find it bizzare an INTP, who are suppose to be logical/rational, could be christian. that's all.

sorry about the last post, it was a little condescending. i think i was in a bad mood :blushed:


----------



## PAdude (Mar 18, 2011)

IMO:

Overly demonstrative theists suck

Overly demonstrative atheists suck


----------



## kiskadee (Jan 9, 2009)

striker161 said:


> hardly irrational, but most definitely typist.
> 
> obviously believe in the jewish bible's version of the creation of the universe, or a god, is irrational. thus, i find it bizzare an INTP, who are suppose to be logical/rational, could be christian. that's all.
> 
> sorry about the last post, it was a little condescending. i think i was in a bad mood :blushed:


I have seen no conclusive correlation between the Feeler/Thinker dichotomy and religious belief; hence, I consider the statement irrational.

I appreciate your apology, though. No hard feelings. :]


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

Grish said:


> I have seen no conclusive correlation between the Feeler/Thinker dichotomy and religious belief; hence, I consider the statement irrational.
> 
> I appreciate your apology, though. No hard feelings. :]


I think maybe feelers and thinkers are more likely to tend towards different types of belief, but are not more or less likely to believe. All the Christian feelers I know seem more content with 'just believing', and are more into the spiritual or emotional side, whereas the Christian thinkers I know have all looked into the philosophies of their beliefs more and are content to believe as long as it seems logical or reasonable to them. Neither way is better or worse, just different.

That's only in my limited experience though.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

_I can understand people having problems with the invisible dragon in my closet in general, specially Ns, but putting out claims that there's no "reason" to believe in my invisible dragon or any evidence for his existence shows that you're either

1) arrogant
or
2) short sighted

Either way it shows that you're rather pissed of and you channel your anger by attacking what you perceive to be the "root" of intelligent thought and claiming it has no basis.

One of the favorite arguments of non-believers that I see used over and over again is the "gaps" argument. "We have a scientific explanation for X therefor attributing it to an invisible dragon is stupid".

As if when I point out to us humans and say that our very existence is evidence for my invisible dragon, as if I'm saying "my invisible dragon has multicolor scales, when we all know invisible dragons have silver scales when they remove their invisibility hex". Or as if when I point out to the mysteries of the universe - as if I'm saying "look this can't be explained at all so therefore my invisible dragon is respobsible". 

This is really silly.

In short the "gaps" argument is a very bad strawman attack.

Here's a thought experiment that aims to show why the "gaps" argument doesn't work at all.

Two persons, A and B. A argues there's no such thing as human intellect. B trying to argue otherwise, but to no avail.

A: There's no evidence that any human has any reasoning power.
B: But look at the human civilization. Human build things, like computers, that do amazing things.
A: No no, I know how computers work, it's all electrons and wires; human minds are not involved at all.
B: How is that?
A: See, when you click a button on the keyboard, a signal is sent to the operating system, and that signal gets forwarded to the active program, and in that signal contains information about what character that key represents, and then the program prints that character at the current cursor position. It's all scientific and well understood process, there are no humans involved.
B: But I never said that humans actually go in there and move these signals themselves. It's just that the existence of such machines proves that humans have a high intellectual ability to build such things.
A: Ah, there you are, employing the "human-mind of the gaps" fallacy. Look, just because I don't know yet how these machines came to existence doesn't prove your point.
B: But I know: humans built them.
A: No no, they are built in factories. In these factories, all the various pieces get assembled and put together by a delicate process. Our knowledge is now so advanced that I can even describe this process for you in great detail. There's no need to appeal for any intelligent forces at all.
B: OK look, you're not getting it. Who do you think built those factories? Who made the programs that receive and interpret the information?
A: Why are you asking "who"? Why assume someone did it at all? We have verifiable scientific explanations; you'd only ask the "who" question if you're an ignorant cave man.

Basically A here represents the non-believer mentality of assuming a-priori (and quite unjustifiably) there what we see is all there is; and that there's nothing higher out there.

OK, so we can't define the magical wonder of my invisible dragon, so what? Can you define Time? Can you even define what the human consciousness is? What is this thing we feel .. our "awareness" .. that "subjective experience" thing? What the hell is it? Can you define it (without referring to itself in the definition)? I'm even having a hard time referring to it; we don't even have a proper name for it. If A were to contend that there's no such thing exists at all, would he be right? If you should reject things you don't understand or can't define, then we must reject the existence of time, higher dimensions, and awareness/consciousness. 

And actually for this reason, if your sole purpose is to fight the magical wonder of my invisible dragon, then anti-dragonism actually carries a heavy unneeded baggage, which in the long term doesn't help at all in your goal of driving people away from invisible dragons. You're basically presenting people with two options: 1) Your dragon is true 2) There's no dragon and you didn't spend all of last night riding him around marveling at the night sky.

Well if that's your offer, no wonder people choose to stick to #1.

The agnostic's position is much more honest and humble IMO, as he realizes that the topic is beyond his comprehension.

Oh and btw, comparing my invisible dragon to God and an invisible pink unicorn is just plain stupid and shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. So if you find yourself resorting to this argument, you better not argue at all.

And actually, belief in an invisible dragon is **not** like belief in harry potter novels. Harry Potter novels are works of fiction and not in the "yea it's obvious" sense, but the work itself asserts itself as a pure fiction/fantasy. But in reality if you think about it, it's not entirely impossible. Is it impossible to imagine a device that lets you ride it and then it flies? Does it require suspension of reason to believe that in the future, it will be possible for us to invent such a device and give it the shape of a stick? If you think this requires suspension of reason, then pause for a minute and contemplate the modern cellphone: a small object that you can hold in your palms and use it to talk to people far far away, across the oceans, instantaneously. Surely it would seem absurd for people 1000 years ago to imagine such a thing; but it's possible, and believing in it does not require one to suspend his reason. So while Harry Potter is purely a work of fiction, not all of its contents is necessarily irrational. If a person came from the future and said that in the future they have "flying sticks", I wouldn't find that hard to believe.

I don't believe the stories about leprachauns and the magical pink unicorn but I want to point out that these kinds of arguments are stupid and counter-productive._

...See what I did there? Once again. *What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.* You seemed to be saying that I was asserting either God exists, or we are just specks of dust. _That isn't what I was saying_. I was saying that we don't know the answer, I didn't pose an alternative theory to your religious belief. I'm just saying that it's irrational and that a suspension of reason is necessary to accept it. Why is a suspension of reason necessary? Because there has never been a documented case of a virgin giving birth. There has never been a documented case of somebody rising from the dead. Until there is a single documented case of either of these things happening, a suspension of reason is necessary to believe them as facts. @hasenj you seem to be defending a god in your argument, which I was never trying to dispute. I was trying to dispute Christianity. Therefore your argument is in no way relevant to anything I said.



Pillow said:


> This is quite possibly the best post in this whole thread. Thank you


Arguably, one of, if not the, worst posts I've seen in a long time. You seem to be an INFP, based on you agreeing so wholeheartedly with this argument. My jaw literally hit the floor when I read it. I can't imagine a single INTJ who wouldn't shudder at reading that. What hasenj was basically saying was that, you can't disprove god/religion because human reasoning is imperfect, therefore no proof humans can provide to dispute any religious claim is invalid because human reasoning is imperfect. But, there is proof that Harry Potter doesn't exist, and invisible dragons so we can discount those. What about your whole schtik about how human reasoning is imperfect? Human reasoning is fine to disprove what you think is false, but doesn't work when trying to disprove things you hold dear?...Exactly.

Also @hasenj, your remark about cellphones makes no sense, at all. Cell phones were made due to human reason, which you just called imperfect. The scientific method was used to create cellphones. The scientific method doesn't rule in terms of absolutes so nothing is perfect. Things can be more perfect than other things, but perfection implies that nothing new can be added to it's explanation, and out understanding of it. Perfection is anti-science. That is why science refers to things as theories, even things that are proven. Because it doesn't deal with absolutes and is always open to change perspectives as new information comes to light.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Arguably, one of, if not the, worst posts I've seen in a long time. You seem to be an INFP, based on you agreeing so wholeheartedly with this argument. My jaw literally hit the floor when I read it. I can't imagine a single INTJ who wouldn't shudder at reading that. What hasenj was basically saying was that, you can't disprove god/religion because human reasoning is imperfect, therefore no proof humans can provide to dispute any religious claim is invalid because human reasoning is imperfect. But, there is proof that Harry Potter doesn't exist, and invisible dragons so we can discount those. What about your whole schtik about how human reasoning is imperfect? Human reasoning is fine to disprove what you think is false, but doesn't work when trying to disprove things you hold dear?...Exactly.


I take it you're a militant atheist.

I assume you are so highly qualified as an MBTI practitioner that you can tell my type by reading one single sentence I write and not knowing anything else about me other than that I am a Christian. I bow to your superior intellect.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Pillow said:


> I take it you're a militant atheist.
> 
> I assume you are so highly qualified as an MBTI practitioner that you can tell my type by reading one single sentence I write and not knowing anything else about me other than that I am a Christian. I bow to your superior intellect.


I'm actually an agnostic, I don't know whether or not there is a god. But I am very against organized religion. People should find their spirituality on their own. And it should be based on their scientific understanding of the world, not some crazy belief system from a book that gives no evidence/reasoning behind it's claims.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you're a Christian. I commented earlier that INTJ and ENTJ's are the two most likely NT's to be religious. However, you accepting hasenj's argument, as if it was rooted in any sort of rational thought, as if he didn't completely contradict himself several times in the argument, simply because the argument made you feel good, is very INFP to me. Commenting that it was one of the best posts you'd ever seen...How could you not have seen all the contradictions?

Not only that, he was saying "Any time you disagree with anyone on an issue that they hold dear to them, it means you are obviously pissed off. Everything you're saying is stupid, when your disagreeing with my religion." Nearly every post you made in support of Christianity/religion, while I may have disagreed, was _LEAGUES and LEAGUES_ above that post. In your posts you at least conceded that there wasn't proof for your belief system. You conceded that human reasoning was separate from religious belief. He claimed that saying there was no proof that religion wasn't accurate makes you stupid. Then he didn't give any proof!


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Pillow said:


> That must be pretty hard for you, no wonder you're so angry about religion. Come to England, you'll fit right in!


Angry? I'm not sure what makes me seem angry to you. Like I said you may interpret my words as anger because I'm questioning a belief you hold so dear. But, it really isn't hard for me to fake religiosity. It's so easy, in fact, that I suspect more people in the US fake it than many would believe, even if told. I seriously think most politicians(especially the conservative ones) lie about their faith. Religion certainly is the quickest route to world domination. But I'm pretty lazy.

You think I can argue against religion, you should hear me argue in favor of it, it's a scream. But, it's more of something I do for amusement and to pass the time. I'm currently in the process of seriously considering becoming a pastor. You control your congregation, and it's the only job where people think they are doing something inherently wrong by not giving you enough money. It's a pretty kush gig. Not to mention you only work one day a week...I probably won't end up doing, but it's always possibility in the back of my mind. I'm not too ethical of a person, but if I did get into it I would want to do at least something positive. I'll probably be one of those pastors who tries to bridge the gap between religion and science, but not before spending years speaking out against the evils of science.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Angry? I'm not sure what makes me seem angry to you. Like I said you may interpret my words as anger because I'm questioning a belief you hold so dear. But, it really isn't hard for me to fake religiosity. It's so easy, in fact, that I suspect more people in the US fake it than many would believe, even if told. I seriously think most politicians(especially the conservative ones) lie about their faith. Religion certainly is the quickest route to world domination. But I'm pretty lazy.
> 
> You think I can argue against religion, you should hear me argue in favor of it, it's a scream. But, it's more of something I do for amusement and to pass the time. I'm currently in the process of seriously considering becoming a pastor. You control your congregation, and it's the only job where people think they are doing something inherently wrong by not giving you enough money. It's a pretty kush gig. Not to mention you only work one day a week...I probably won't end up doing, but it's always possibility in the back of my mind. I'm not too ethical of a person, but if I did get into it I would want to do at least something positive. I'll probably be one of those pastors who tries to bridge the gap between religion and science, but not before spending years speaking out against the evils of science.


Wow defensive or what! I was trying to be nice. I didn't mean hard in that sense, more annoying and it must really get on your nerves sometimes. Though apparently I was mistaken if you're considering becoming a pastor


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Pillow said:


> Wow defensive or what! I was trying to be nice. I didn't mean hard in that sense, more annoying and it must really get on your nerves sometimes. Though apparently I was mistaken if you're considering becoming a pastor


 Was my post defensive? I was being serious.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Was my post defensive? I was being serious.


I guess you probably weren't trying to sound angry or defensive, my ENTP husband has that problem - everything he says, especially on forums, ends up sounding hostile.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Aila8 said:


> I suppose it can be true that NTJs can accept God more than the NTPs because we are focused on the big picture. I see how you're picking at the details that negate the Bible's validity--- don't think I haven't picked at them either. However, I find the big picture of Faith more important than the technical contradictions there may be in the Bible. Since, I'm doing generalizations here with typology and such, I can see how Js would not continue to use the tool that doesn't fit the screw and would more than likely try with another tool. I'll close here.


Maybe I'm overly sensitive about this, but I think it'd be a mistake to say NTP's are less "big picture" focused than NTJ's. Noticing technical and logical contradictions doesn't mean you miss the big picture. You can still understand the grand sweep of the whole while still caring about everything being consistent. Actually NTP's have a knack for seeing why two seemingly unrelated things actually are linked with Ne, and then can tell why they contradict each other with Ti. So the nitpicky approach INTP's are especially famous for actually links to big picture thought, since we see the far reaching potential ramifications of logical contradictions. Usually a focus on the picture goes along with intuition, so one could even argue ENTP's would be more big picture focused than ENTJ's. But NTP's are definitely not as good as synthesizing these observations into all-encompassing worldview the way Ni-users do. For us, Ti is most powerful universalizing force (introversion tends to universalize, or want everything to agree with its standards, seeing everything as relating to them). So it is logical correctness that is most absolute to use instead of the big picture (N in general). So I could see the NTJ having a bit of an edge there, but it isn't big picture vs. "not big picture".

Anyway, I'd say NTP's might even be more likely to believe in God (not sure, just a guess) because Si and Fe, while not too prominent in us, are still there and are the most susceptible functions to religious influence (I know from personal experience that there really are a lot of SFJ's in church, quite aside from the fact that there are a lot of them to begin with). I've seen a fair number of NTP's in religious settings. Just as many as NTJ's if not more. But that just might be my personal history.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Maybe I'm overly sensitive about this, but I think it'd be a mistake to say NTP's are less "big picture" focused than NTJ's. Noticing technical and logical contradictions doesn't mean you miss the big picture. You can still understand the grand sweep of the whole while still caring about everything being consistent. Actually NTP's have a knack for seeing why two seemingly unrelated things actually are linked with Ne, and then can tell why they contradict each other with Ti. So the nitpicky approach INTP's are especially famous for actually links to big picture thought, since we see the far reaching potential ramifications of logical contradictions. Usually a focus on the picture goes along with intuition, so one could even argue ENTP's would be more big picture focused than ENTJ's. But NTP's are definitely not as good as synthesizing these observations into all-encompassing worldview the way Ni-users do. For us, Ti is most powerful universalizing force (introversion tends to universalize, or want everything to agree with its standards, seeing everything as relating to them). So it is logical correctness that is most absolute to use instead of the big picture (N in general). So I could see the NTJ having a bit of an edge there.
> 
> Anyway, I'd say NTP's might even be more likely to believe in God (not sure, just a guess) because Si and Fe, while not too prominent in us, are still there and are the most susceptible functions to religious influence (I know from personal experience that there really are a lot of SFJ's in church, quite aside from the fact that there are a lot of them to begin with). I've seen a fair number of NTP's in religious settings. Just as many as NTJ's if not more. But that just might be my personal history.


Yeh MartyFly1 mentioned it in his response but neglected to acknowledge it. Thanks for your further clarification, I appreciate it.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Aila8 said:


> Yeh MartyFly1 mentioned it in his response but neglected to acknowledge it. Thanks for your further clarification, I appreciate it.


Bah, sorry about that...was too lazy to read the whole thread.:tongue:


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I'm an INTJ atheist, but I figured I'd provide a resource for both the religious and non-religious in this thread, as I've seen some poor reasoning from both camps.

Philosophy of Religion*|*Archive**[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Above is an academic compilation of religious philosophy. Hopefully it will inspire and educate theists and non-theists alike. And who knows, maybe some people will even change their minds? (probably xNTPs :wink

One thing I tend to really like about religious NTs, of whom I know several in real life, is the intelligence that goes into their beliefs. It's always a joy to talk to a philosophical theist who isn't hostile, since in the end we're working towards the same thing - understanding the world we live in.

And yes, they definitely exist.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

@Valdyr - read some of the link, bookmarked for further study 

Part of the problem I seem to have is that I come up with a question about Christianity, then research it and usually find an answer that convinces me, then once I've done that it seems to go into a 'solved' file in my brain, but when someone asks me about it I can only remember the basics and have to go back and research it all over again. I might start writing it all down so I remember it better.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

Pillow said:


> @Valdyr - read some of the link, bookmarked for further study
> 
> Part of the problem I seem to have is that I come up with a question about Christianity, then research it and usually find an answer that convinces me, then once I've done that it seems to go into a 'solved' file in my brain, but when someone asks me about it I can only remember the basics and have to go back and research it all over again. I might start writing it all down so I remember it better.


This happens to me on philosophical problems of all sorts, which is one of the reasons I sometimes avoid "real time" debates/sophistry in favor of papers/academic debate. I'll get all worried about some problem and go into hyper-philosophizing mode, pouring over papers and books on the subject. The second I find a solution that seems to me to work, it goes "click," and your comparison with a feeling of then filing it away is very accurate. I can't just spit out every detail of the argument on the spot.

I think a lot of both theists and non-theists are kind of sold short by the method of real time debate, as it puts people on the spot, making the discussion a contest of rhetoric rather than an attempt to solve an intellectual problem.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Valdyr said:


> I'm an INTJ atheist, but I figured I'd provide a resource for both the religious and non-religious in this thread, as I've seen some poor reasoning from both camps.
> 
> Philosophy of Religion*|*Archive**[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> ...


I skimmed it and tickled my curiousity ;P. 

And @MartyMcFly1 even though I don't agree with your ethics (which shouldn't matter anyway) your reasons behind being a pastor amuses me. hahahaha. 

But anway, I think there is a majority who fake it and a majority who have edited their god to suite their truth (the ones who stretch the rules). I think, there are more Christians who do the latter than the former.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

@Nitou, I meant people who are so readily dismissive and boldly claim there's no reason/evidence. If you've pondered the question a long time and reached whatever conclusion convinced you best, I've no problem with that.

re: blind watchmaker etc, I'm aware of these types of arguments but don't find them very convincing quite honestly. They all boil down to an assertion that "yes, things can design themselves! just like that!". Refer to my computers & factories analogy. Pointing to the factory does not exclude design, let alone prove its absence.

I can boil the argument down to a simple assertion: design is self-evident; denying it requires tremendous effort. It's much simpler to accept things as they are rather than trying to bend over backwards just to get a result you desire.

On the other hand, what science really does is disprove the mythologies of creation, but this is a different issue all together: disproving the Bible does not disprove God. One can be completely irreligious and still believe in the existence of God. Like I already hinted, it's much easier to disprove Christianity by just disproving the Bible rather than attempting to argue that God doesn't exist.

re: who created god? The universe needs a creator because it's subject to physical laws and can't do anything outside these laws. If it were to be created, its creation would have to be caused by something outside of it, something not restricted by physical laws. The cycle of causation cannot go backwards forever, so something must've existed at first without needing a cause, and we can know this thing is not subject to physical laws, otherwise it would need something else to cause it. So whatever that "first cause" is, it can't be material, because materials are subject to physical laws and they cannot come out of nothing.



> I think a lot of both theists and non-theists are kind of sold short by the method of real time debate, as it puts people on the spot, making the discussion a contest of rhetoric rather than an attempt to solve an intellectual problem.


One of the reasons I avoid debates like these on forums.


----------



## gaudy316 (Nov 19, 2010)

I know 2 INTPs and 2 INTJs very well. 1 INTJ is strictly buddhist. The other INTJ is a 'newly-saved' Christian. Both the INTPs are atheists. 

From an iNFp, I see too many good and evil in the world and at an early age I just knew there must be an evil and good force out there. That was enough for me to start off as an agnostic: I have never seen God or the Devil personally, but they may be at work invisibly. 

I personally don't think that human logic or feeling can prove a spiritual deity's existence. One day on the internet when I was bored, and I thought of researching any paranormal activities (lol) - modern-day ghosts, miracles, visions, witchcraft, Satanists, vampires & zombies, etc. I started going to a Christian church several years ago and felt 'welcome' for the first time in my life. Church members have been treating me with energy, acceptance, and respect since then. I saw a lot of good in this community, despite what the media and other outlets have been portraying Christians as of late. We perform community service, host retreats for other churches, and have lots of great fun & games. Not only that, these Christians are "Christians" not just on Sunday, but during the rest of the week as well. I admire them and in the back of my head, compare to these people to others. Why can't the rest of the world be like them? - is an example. I don't know why, but I can safely assume there must be an evil force out there that is just as active as the good. 

However, sometimes I do feel empty from this thing called God's "unconditional love." But that occasional emptiness - through the forms of stressing out, frustration, family problems, etc. - I know that it's a test of faith from afar. I will continue to endure.

I dated an INTP before and we had many great conversations. Both of us have seen the same world, including the good and the evil. Neither of us has seen God himself, but I chose to go along with my feelings on this one (INFP, duh). She acknowledged, too, that her reasoning may be completely off but she's a scientist - requires proof. She respected my beliefs, and I respected hers too. Despite our spiritual differences, we had many great moments, most of which were just chilling backyard and talking about random things. 

Today's Holy Thursday, so I just thought about sharing my (not logic but rather) faith.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

hasenj said:


> re: blind watchmaker etc, I'm aware of these types of arguments but don't find them very convincing quite honestly. They all boil down to an assertion that "yes, things can design themselves! just like that!". Refer to my computers & factories analogy. Pointing to the factory does not exclude design, let alone prove its absence.


For life as we know it on earth, there is no need for a creator. Evolution of species and biogenesis are as unconscious as the flow of water, just more complex. Life is a result of natural phenomena, of interactions between matter and energy. It isn't design so much as it is things moving in to place by the nature of their properties. 



> I can boil the argument down to a simple assertion: design is self-evident; denying it requires tremendous effort. It's much simpler to accept things as they are rather than trying to bend over backwards just to get a result you desire.


We are often tempted to anthropomorphize things. We're hardwired for it because it helps us survive. If you see an ambiguous figure in the dark, it is safer to assume it is alive and be mistaken than the other way around. If you're in survival mode, to anthropomorphize the unknown could provide a morale boost or a tool to keep people in line. That could mean the difference between life and death. There is a parallel between instinct and faith; both seek to avoid death and gain immortality. Gods are projections of ourselves. Design is a human concept that does not apply to the universe. 



> re: who created god? The universe needs a creator because it's subject to physical laws and can't do anything outside these laws. If it were to be created, its creation would have to be caused by something outside of it, something not restricted by physical laws. The cycle of causation cannot go backwards forever, so something must've existed at first without needing a cause, and we can know this thing is not subject to physical laws, otherwise it would need something else to cause it. So whatever that "first cause" is, it can't be material, because materials are subject to physical laws and they cannot come out of nothing.


The universe is not subject to physical laws; rather, the physical laws describe our observations of the universe. _ We_ created those laws as an aid to understanding how things work. Beyond the origin of the universe, we have no knowledge on which to build laws, only hypotheses and projections.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

> For life as we know it on earth, there is no need for a creator. Evolution of species and biogenesis are as unconscious as the flow of water, just more complex.


"For computers to evolve, there's no need of any designers, factories are as unconscious as the flow of water, [AND/OR: the market is as unconscious as the flow of water]". 

It doesn't follow from evolution that there's no design. In the same way, we can describe the evolution of computers and the market forces and all that, but for all that they're still designed, and it's self evident. This is something not many people realize but even people like Michael Behe do not deny common descent. They just deny the new-darwinian way of thiking about evolution as occurring due to mutations. Oh and don't give me that "but natural selection is not random" argument: if evolution worked only by natural selection, without mutations, then it would be like the market, and the market does not "develop" things, people do. For "evolution" to be "god-less", you have to attribute changes to "random mutations".

As for "things and atoms just falling into place" .. meh; too big of a bullet to bite for me. When I see people say things like this, I can't help but feel they're trying too much to disprove an obvious truth (and failing).



> We are often tempted to anthropomorphize things. We're hardwired for it because it helps us survive (.....)


That's a weak sort of argument. I can attribute the denial of higher forces to human arrogance. Whether or not our beliefs have some sort of emotional roots doesn't help to prove or disprove them. This sort of argument can only work if you're already convinced. Actually I can tell you why you need to use this sort of argument: it bothers you that other "seemingly intelligent" people don't reach your same conclusions, so you have a psychological need to attribute their beliefs to something other than reason, otherwise you will be in a state of uncertainty "but look, some people don't agree with me, how should I deal with that?" so the answer comes "oh don't worry, they're just being irrational, and here's why: <insert emotional root for opposite beliefs>". 

It's better to be humble enough and understand that people are different and have different ways of thinking than to try and attribute irrationality to them. Because in reality, every belief has some sort of emotional root. One can argue that ethics and moral values are all just lies and the truth is there's no such thing. And then you can go on to explain why people feel like they need to invent such things by appealing to "animal instinct" and so on. But, well, that wouldn't be a good argument for why we shouldn't behave ethically and morally. I can also argue for "idealism" (the philosophical position that reality is not real), and I can explain why humans feel the "need" to "believe" that their "reality" is "real" by means of their feeble and weak minds; but that wouldn't be a good argument to convince other people. 

If anything, I'd say this sort of argument is a very irrational way to defend your beliefs (but it seems to work).



> The universe is not subject to physical laws; rather, the physical laws describe our observations of the universe. We created those laws as an aid to understanding how things work. Beyond the origin of the universe, we have no knowledge on which to build laws, only hypotheses and projections.


Sure, you can hypothesize that it's possible for matter to come into existence out of nothing under some conditions which were true before the origin of the universe but which don't apply now. But I mean, when you assume that "some conditions" existed before the universe, well these conditions themselves are "things" so to speak and would need a reason to exist. Like I said the cycle of causation cannot go backwards for ever. Something must've existed originally without needing a cause.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

hasenj said:


> Nitou said:
> 
> 
> > For life as we know it on earth, there is no need for a creator. Evolution of species and biogenesis are as unconscious as the flow of water, just more complex.
> ...


We have identified life as having certain characteristics, ie., it consumes energy, it grows, etc., most importantly, it reproduces. Somewhere in time, in the early days of the earth, we theorize the advent of the self-replicating molecules. This would have been long before the origin of life, but pre-life would have been subjected to natural selection and undergone chemical evolution. For example, phospholipids characteristically form tiny bilayer spheres. The replicating molecules that encased themselves in spheres would have an advantage over ones that didn't. This is a "strategy" that worked very well, as there is no life form on earth that does not have its vital parts encased in cell membranes. The existence of self-replicating, "evolving" molecules has been demonstrated in the lab. If there is a Creator, then s/he merely created the conditions allowing for biogenesis; s/he did not need to create nor guide life. 



> It doesn't follow from evolution that there's no design.


On the contrary, design implies a plan, but what is the design planned for evolution? Do you assume that human beings are the apex of evolutionary design? I don't think so. We have a number of painful flaws that I would think a designer would have repaired, no? There have been five great cataclysms that wiped out huge numbers of species. Each time there is a cataclysm, new species evolve to fill in the gaps left by the ones that died out. Something around 95% of all species that have existed, are gone. Cataclysm could, and probably will, happen again. Should a great cloud blot out the sun, or if there is an extreme change in the climate, we're going to have a very hard time and we might not survive. A creature that is even more adaptable than we are could take our place. 



> In the same way, we can describe the evolution of computers and the market forces and all that, but for all that they're still designed, and it's self evident. This is something not many people realize but even people like Michael Behe do not deny common descent. They just deny the new-darwinian way of thiking about evolution as occurring due to mutations. Oh and don't give me that "but natural selection is not random" argument: if evolution worked only by natural selection, without mutations, then it would be like the market, and the market does not "develop" things, people do. For "evolution" to be "god-less", you have to attribute changes to "random mutations".


I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Surely you are not claiming that mutation does not happen, or that it is not significant to evolution? Natural selection is not random, but evolution requires a little randomness to drive it. Not only is mutation bound to happen, but some propensity for mutation is actually selected for. To put it in anthropomorphic terms, mutation is a deliberate part of the design. That is because natural selection favors diversity. Also, mutation is not the only way to introduce more variety into the gene pool. Most life forms use sexual reproduction or another method to recombine the genes and increase diversity. 



> As for "things and atoms just falling into place" .. meh; too big of a bullet to bite for me. When I see people say things like this, I can't help but feel they're trying too much to disprove an obvious truth (and failing).


I realize that "Things falling into place" is not a convincing argument. I know a bit about biology, but not enough to properly convey or fully understand _how_ things fall into place. There are authors like Richard Dawkins who put it so eloquently that I called him a pious atheist for the sense of wonder in the natural world that he conveyed. I don't quite agree with the atheist activism turn that he has taken, but he has written some very good books on evolution. 



> Nitou said:
> 
> 
> > We are often tempted to anthropomorphize things. We're hardwired for it because it helps us survive (.....)
> ...


"Arrogance?" How? I assure you that I am only "bothered" for my own amusement, for discussion. (Albeit, the more dogmatic varieties of believers do actually bother me but that has more to do with their behavior than with their beliefs.) I have observed that the vast majority of people on earth believe in the supernatural, and cultural factors alone do not account for this. So that means that either supernatural beings exist, or there is some other explanation why people believe in them. Given that supernatural events are so subjective and unverifiable, the existence of the supernatural is not a satisfactory explanation to me. There are only natural things which we do not understand. One person says God is "This" another says God is "That" and both are very certain that they are correct. There aren't really any means to measure the objective validity of spiritual beliefs. This is why I look for physical and/or psychological rather than spiritual explanations for things. Don't think that I am denigrating the psyche or devaluing the subjective side of it (this is where I differ from the more "religious" variety of atheist). I just don't particularly understand or value it personally. 

As I think I mentioned above, I have had a number of "supernatural" experiences. In fact I adopted the handle Nitou in tribute to one of them. But, I am motivated to try to understand more fully what is happening, not to just accept my own perceptions or any one of the various and contradictory spiritual explanations. There are some mysterious things for which I have no explanations, but that doesn't mean I will accept that there is no rational explanation to be had. Rational explanations can be anticlimatic like discovering a magician's tricks, nevertheless, I like to know what is behind the curtain.



> It's better to be humble enough and understand that people are different and have different ways of thinking than to try and attribute irrationality to them. Because in reality, every belief has some sort of emotional root. One can argue that ethics and moral values are all just lies and the truth is there's no such thing. And then you can go on to explain why people feel like they need to invent such things by appealing to "animal instinct" and so on. But, well, that wouldn't be a good argument for why we shouldn't behave ethically and morally. I can also argue for "idealism" (the philosophical position that reality is not real), and I can explain why humans feel the "need" to "believe" that their "reality" is "real" by means of their feeble and weak minds; but that wouldn't be a good argument to convince other people.
> If anything, I'd say this sort of argument is a very irrational way to defend your beliefs (but it seems to work).


I object to your statement that every belief has some sort of emotional root. I don't think that is true of me at all. I would rather examine my beliefs for emotional bias and account for it or get rid of it if possible. My lack of belief in gods is intellectually but not emotionally satisfying. I would like to think that there is some powerful spirit that has a personal interest in my affairs. (Speaking of arrogance, isn't it "arrogant" to think that there is a powerful diety who cares about you personally? The accusation of arrogance can be flung both ways.) I wish that there was some divine justice that would make right all of the wrongs in the world. I might desire immortality in paradise where I can see my lost loved ones again, or a chance to reincarnate and live again. True to type perhaps, I prefer that which makes sense to me intellectually over what feels good. You are mistaken if you attribute this value to a lack of humility. 



> Nitou said:
> 
> 
> > The universe is not subject to physical laws; rather, the physical laws describe our observations of the universe. We created those laws as an aid to understanding how things work. Beyond the origin of the universe, we have no knowledge on which to build laws, only hypotheses and projections.
> ...


Honestly, I don't feel qualified to hypothesize on what did exist or did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe. I vaguely recall reading that matter can indeed just "pop into existence" that this has been observed at the quantum level. Other than that, I don't know. Perhaps it is a paradox that further research in mathematics and quantum physics will elucidate. But to infuse this paradoxical "something" with humanity? That is no different from assuming that stones have souls. There is not even reliable proof (aside from anecdote) that consciousness exists outside of the brain, let alone behind the workings of the universe.


----------



## vasara (Jun 28, 2011)

i am. INTJ female christian and i know at least one more


----------



## justcritic (Mar 26, 2011)

INTP male Christian.


----------



## vasara (Jun 28, 2011)

now somehow it feels like confession thread


----------



## sh1pit76 (Nov 19, 2011)

*Einstein was a Deist*



Nitou said:


> I have met one. His reason for his faith in Christianity was that he was suspicious of the fallibility of human reason.


Although he was not a Christian, I believe Einstein was, at least, a deist, and he also was suspicious of the fallibility of human reason. And he was an INTP


----------

