what i notice about ENTJ in real life


i notice that mostly ENTJs are:

  • atheist
  • first/last/only child

    What more can you add up here from what you have noticed in real life?




I’m an atheist. And an only child. Just to add up for your theory.


I am an atheist.

I am the eldest child.


Agnostic (can’t be atheist because its not logical: its not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God).
However, I recognize organized religion for what it is: simplified philosophy for the masses, and a means of political control.

Eldest child.


I agree with this.


According to scientific method, the onus of proof belongs to the proponent of a theory. So I rest my case.

The relevant thing you got right, though. =D


Actually, according to the scientific method, its impossible to prove a negative.Specifically, the absence of evidence does not yield to any conclusion at all.

In other words, its impossible to prove that God does not exist, simply because no evidence of his existence has (yet) been found. (Modus Tollens)

Expansion: Needless to say, I do not really think there is any evidence of God’s presence, so its impossible to prove his existence. Neither does that suggest that God does not exist, because it is impossible to examine every particle in the Universe and provide evidence of absence (which should not be confused with absence of evidence).

Hence, its quite illogical to be an atheist - i.e. atheism is just another belief system.

I don’t believe in belief systems - i.e. I cannot disregard my mind and the logic it can comprehend.

Hence I am agnostic. QED.


It’s completely rational and logical to not believe in something that hasn’t been proven yet.

For example, a little girl comes up to me and claims that pink unicorns exist on Pluto. I’m not gonna be agnostic about that, I’m just not gonna believe it until she proves it.

If I was agnostic about every unproven thing that comes up in my life I wouldn’t be very efficient. I’d be stuck.




Precisely. That’s why you don’t have to go far from the link you’ve posted in order to read about burden of proof, that terminologically belongs to the ones making an extraordinary a claim, not the ones negating it.

Therefore, agnosticism is one of those claims that, while defensible duo to the fact that nobody can disproof the existence of god - and I agree with that - should be abandoned duo to the statistical irrelevance of the god alternative.

We assume as scientific fact the only theories mathematically relevant all the time, so your point for denying atheism might as well be used to deny gravity, evolution or even what you’ve eaten for lunch (based on the fact that senses are fallible).

Although the epistemological discussion is fascinating, as a social scientist, I’m more worried about the implications on the realm of humanities. The reason why people in general believe atheism is just “a belief system” - even though it is as “hard” as scientific facts get (unless you count direct observation) - is because they, conscientiously or not, don’t want to make a statement and be obligated to defend a position.

People do that all the time, not only about religion. By disregard probability as part of scientific method, they assume that “everything is possible” or, even worst, that “truth is a matter of perspective”. Those are really problematic statements, because they prevent you from producing acts from theories or being effective whatsoever.

But, as I said before, as long as you are assuming that god does not exist as a rule for making decisions and understand that religion is a method for controlling people based on lies - and therefore a scourge to society - you should be ok.



Is it me or it made no sense at all? This is not sarcasm, ok? I really can’t understand. So, I’ll say what I think about the only part I got: no, fear is not absence of anything, it is the presence of some chemical reactions. In fact, in moderate doses it is useful.

Groups always have values and beliefs and how tos on dealing with fear and pain and although there is certainly a relation between this and the origins of most if not all religions (though not the only one and not determinant), they became a much more complex social structure through time.

So no, religion is not only the way you deal with your pain, it is a complete belief system from witch derives a complete cosmo-vision based on “reveled truths” as oppose to provable or disprovable facts - and thus, essentially irrational. (This is way we have so many atheist NTs, by the way.)

Therefore classifying atheism as a belief system (since only requires that you negates ONE premise as oppose to believing in thousands of them) is a temerity and saying it is a religion - pardon me - is plain silly.

Since you state you are an ‘S’, or almost one, I’ll provide you colorful empirical exemplification: ALL catholics believe in the bible as truth revealed, diverse saints, miracles and the infallibility of the pope in matters of the church. If they don’t them they are not catholics, they just say they are, most likely duo to conscious or unconscious social pressure.

(The same goes for sex before marriage, use of condoms and so on, people. I’m sorry, but you can’t be a “half-catholic” as much as you can’t be “half-dead”. Unless you don’t mind being utterly incoherent.)

ALL atheists DON’T believe in one thing and one thing only: the existence of god. They can be libertarians, fascists, anarchists, liberals or disccordionists, among others. They can be promiscuous or celibate, they can be leftists or right-wingers and they can respect man and dead or they can kill them with a shot to their heads. Libertarianism, communism, anarchism, fascism, liberalism and so on are belief systems (though not religions), atheism ain’t.


[size=200]wisdom vs intelligence[/size]
Intelligence is to know about the world, Wisdom is to know that we don’t really know squat!

I’m the youngest of 5, I believe in god strongly. I noticed that I’m in the minority but my experiences are very different from most Entj‘s I have met. I do understand that had I not lived the life I lived, I would probably be agnostic or atheist. extreme life experiences brings about wisdom , wisdom and intelligence are two very different things; although most people believe them to be the same And wisdom influences my religious views.


Btw, there’s a huge chance you’re gonna be either the first, last or the only child because in developed nations I think 2.5 children is the average.




Anyone can has his/her own belief- God/ Budda… and i respect their belief. As i think their are things that science couldnt prove, and still not yet so far.
However, religious is good up to the point that you dont misuse it. So, just dont cross the limit.
I do believe in what has meaning and be good. Doing Right and Good things is my belief.


For me i think only an individual knows the truth of the matter. Truth isnt something that is static. its constantly changing and dynamic.

I love Rumi because although alot of his writing and poems have religious conotations he looks beyond that. he lived 800 years ago but is still very relevant today. his work speaks to everybody regardless of creed or race or nationality. for me he has been a source of inspiration for many years. he talks about the Human family and below is a fitting example of his message

Only Breath

Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu

Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion

or cultural system. I am not from the East

or the West, not out of the ocean or up

from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not

composed of elements at all. I do not exist,

am not an entity in this world or in the next,

did not descend from Adam and Eve or any

origin story. My place is placeless, a trace

of the traceless. Neither body or soul.

I belong to the beloved, have seen the two

worlds as one and that one call to and know,

first, last, outer, inner, only that

breath breathing human being.


Yes and no.

Gravity, evolution etc are theories, not fact, and may eventually be disproven in part or whole and tweaked over time, as has happened continually ever since either was proposed. Thats the very definition of the scientific method. It is how we evolved from an earth-centric world-view to a Copernican perspective, for example, or from Newtons Three Laws to Relativity.

We can use our knowledge of gravity, for example, to a certain extent before our ability to make predictions or even observations breaks down. In my opinion, advancement in our understanding will not only be continuous, but accelerating. However, it is inevitable that several discoveries that lay ahead may completely change our perspectives, just like Copernicus, Adam Smith, Galileo and Darwin did over the last millennium - proving conventional wisdom not only wrong but in many cases the opposite of observable reality.

Accordingly, the subject of religion/ God may yet remain to be resolved, but perhaps not in the way we expect.

Yes, I certainly don’t think organized religion is anything other than politics/ simplified philosophy for the masses. In fact, I don’t understand why any NT would participate in any organized religion (though I know several who do, including on this forum).

But there are several phenomena that are not easy to explain and the possibility of an all-powerful being cannot be ruled out due to our as-yet limited understanding of the universe. For example, we may be gods to bacteria in a lab. How do we know we are not in a universe-sized test-tube ourselves? Or perhaps we come across as demigods to… most animals. How do we know we will not encounter other sentient beings in the universe who’s advances make them appear superhuman or demigod-like to us? I’m quite sure that a man with Google, an iPhone, a Flip camera, a weaponized laser and a Kevlar vest would come across as all-knowing, ominipresent, and all-powerful to even Genghis Khan, the supposedly most powerful human of the 12th century! How would we feel if faced by the potential of the 27th century man?

Given the size of the known universe, and the multiple possibilities it contains for intelligence beyond this planet, until we have a more exhaustive understanding of it, even probabilistically we cannot reasonably insist against the presence of a ‘God’. But I think its pretty safe to say that baptism/ facing Mecca/ lighting candles etc. have nothing to do with this discussion, and only to do with what concepts a person builds up in their own minds to help them face reality and the present.

In a nutshell, while I am sympathetic to atheists (because atheism has excellent predictive abilities within a certain observable context), atheism is a belief system, just like religion, if applied universally. Doesn’t satisfy my need to be logical.