Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Autism and atheism link??

Page 3 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Feb 2012, 8:21 am

davidalan11235813 wrote:
Claiming agnosticism when asked for belief, IMO, is just sidestepping the question.


There are quite a few positions between theism and atheism. Why resort to bifurcation?



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

13 Feb 2012, 8:29 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
I mention this, because I think there are numerous people who fly under the banner of atheist/agnostic, who may be more aptly described as ignostic, too.


All people that don't hold a positive god belief for whatever reason are atheists. Ignosticism is therefore a subset of atheism, imho.

Atheists don't necessarily make any assumptions about the nature of god/s. Even people who have never heard the word "god" are atheists.


I disagree. The spectrum of irrationality is as follows.

To be an atheist one must take the position that there are no deities.


I disagree. Atheism is the lack of theistic belief. It is not necessarily gnostic atheism. Most atheists are agnostic.

Quote:
And an agnostic is unsure if there are deities, so doesn't firmly take a position.


That is also not quite correct. Agnosticism is the view that the existence and the properties of god/s are unknowable. It is not a middle way between theism and atheism, but rather a position that is compatible with both.

Quote:
A theist takes the position there are deities.


Not all theists are convinced that there are deities. There is such a thing as agnostic theism. Agnostic theists think that god is unknowable, but nonetheless choose to believe in a god.

Quote:
An ignostic takes the position the word deities is without meaning, thus the argument is pointless. They do not put themselves into the spectrum of irrationality.

I find more value in discussing similarly nonsensical strings of words, like whether colorless green idea sleep furiously or not. At least these are novel and fresh. If we must continue discussing nonsense, can we at least keep it new and interesting?


Many atheists hold that the word "god" is utterly devoid of meaning. Atheists only debate god/s on the basis of religious definitions of deities. We don't come up with these definitions ourselves. Therefore, ignosticism is perfectly compatible with atheism (as is agnosticism).



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

13 Feb 2012, 8:34 am

CoMF wrote:
davidalan11235813 wrote:
Claiming agnosticism when asked for belief, IMO, is just sidestepping the question.


There are quite a few positions between theism and atheism. Why resort to bifurcation?


There is gnostic and agnostic theism, as well as gnostic and agnostic atheism. But ultimately, every person either believes or doesn't believe in god/s.

Which positions do you think lie between belief and lack of belief? I can only think of "meh, I don't care", which would be apatheism. But even apatheists are atheists since they have no positive god belief.



MagicToenail
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 401

13 Feb 2012, 8:48 am

You can be an atheist and say, believe in an afterlife, like Sam Harris believes in reincarnation. Or an atheist who believes that life on earth was star seeded by advanced aliens. And it's totally possible to be a Hindu or Buddhist atheist. Buddhism in particular is non-theistic in that you don't have to believe in God(s) to reach enlighenment.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

13 Feb 2012, 8:52 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
I disagree. Atheism is the lack of theistic belief. It is not necessarily gnostic atheism. Most atheists are agnostic.

Quote:
And an agnostic is unsure if there are deities, so doesn't firmly take a position.


That is also not quite correct. Agnosticism is the view that the existence and the properties of god/s are unknowable. It is not a middle way between theism and atheism, but rather a position that is compatible with both.

Quote:
A theist takes the position there are deities.


Not all theists are convinced that there are deities. There is such a thing as agnostic theism. Agnostic theists think that god is unknowable, but nonetheless choose to believe in a god.

Quote:
An ignostic takes the position the word deities is without meaning, thus the argument is pointless. They do not put themselves into the spectrum of irrationality.

I find more value in discussing similarly nonsensical strings of words, like whether colorless green idea sleep furiously or not. At least these are novel and fresh. If we must continue discussing nonsense, can we at least keep it new and interesting?


Many atheists hold that the word "god" is utterly devoid of meaning. Atheists only debate god/s on the basis of religious definitions of deities. We don't come up with these definitions ourselves. Therefore, ignosticism is perfectly compatible with atheism (as is agnosticism).


While it seems we agree on many of the core issues on principle, our definitions are slightly skewed.

Quote:
In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).


I still maintain that there is a spectrum, that Athiesm and Theism are at opposite ends, and varied brands of agnosticism lie in between.

Quote:
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Spiritual Agnostic
Agnostics who follow a devoted practice to traditionally religious spiritual practices in the absence of the knowledge of God while being irreligious.

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.


And that Ignosticism is seperate from this spectrum, due to willfully obstaining from acknowledgment that the question is valid.

Quote:
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Feb 2012, 9:10 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Which positions do you think lie between belief and lack of belief? I can only think of "meh, I don't care", which would be apatheism. But even apatheists are atheists since they have no positive god belief.


How about not asserting the existence or non-existence of a deity due to a lack of empirical evidence for either proposition?

Personally, I view the whole atheism vs. theism debate as a false dilemma.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

13 Feb 2012, 9:13 am

aghogday wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
I mention this, because I think there are numerous people who fly under the banner of atheist/agnostic, who may be more aptly described as ignostic, too.


All people that don't hold a positive god belief for whatever reason are atheists. Ignosticism is therefore a subset of atheism, imho.

Atheists don't necessarily make any assumptions about the nature of god/s. Even people who have never heard the word "god" are atheists.


Classical Pantheism requires no specific language. Culture likely inhibits the experience for some.

Nor, does it likely require membership in the human species.

The beliefs of many "religions" past and present among human beings match the general definition of theism. They haven't heard the word God or Atheist; their definitions of their beliefs is the only issue that is relevant.

I don't think my cat is an atheist. I understand him to be connected to my personal definition of God, forever in his experience of the present, in the way it IS for him.


Of course cats are aware of the nature that surrounds them. But I don't think that cats anthropomorphize (or felinomorphize) nature in the way human Pantheists do. I find it very questionable that non-human animals would have a god concept, other perhaps than worshipping their owner. But judging by feline behavior, the human owner is simply a mother substitute for cats.

I'm pretty certain that only humans look at nature and think "all this stuff must somehow be conscious or at least alive, including those rocks over there" (or alternatively "all this amazing sh*t must have been created by a giant superpowered humanoid" in case of theism). Cats lack the philosophical capacity for such thoughts.

Cats do have a concept of the future though and don't just live in the present. The fact that cats spend hours at a mouse burrow shows that they are capable of deferred gratification and able to expect a future event. My two cats also know that I will eventually come back from a shopping trip and wait at the door for treats :)

Quote:
One can't really limit anyone elses definition for how they understand or experience the construct labeled as God on a personal level, unless one can enter another person's or creature's unique Universe of experience.

In respect to one's experience of what they define as what is, while God and atheist work well enough for some descriptions within our shared cultures, it only works for those whom it works for.

This kind of thing can be hard to put into words.

One thing I'm sure of, is, it's not as simple as what our particular shared culture normally defines as God, Agnostic, Ignostic, Theism, or Atheist. It would be easy if it were that black and white, but one's experience of God can have endless variations of color, that others don't experience.


No matter how people experience their personal god/s, someone who believes in any kind of god or deity fits the theism bill. In the broadest sense, theism means "the belief in one or more gods". One either has such a belief, regardless of one's personal god concept, or one doesn't believe in any of the billions of god templates and personal deities that humans have come up with. That's why all people either fall into the atheist or the theist camp. Ignosticism, agnosticism, apatheism etc. are just complementary views.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

13 Feb 2012, 9:19 am

CoMF wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Which positions do you think lie between belief and lack of belief? I can only think of "meh, I don't care", which would be apatheism. But even apatheists are atheists since they have no positive god belief.


How about not asserting the existence or non-existence of a deity due to a lack of empirical evidence for either proposition?

Personally, I view the whole atheism vs. theism debate as a false dilemma.


*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.

There is such a thing as gnostic atheism or strong atheism, but that is only a subset of atheism. Unless you positively and wholeheartedly believe in the existence of a deity, you are an atheist.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Feb 2012, 9:34 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.


Then why do some Atheists frequently assert that the existence of "God" (whoever that is) is an impossibility as though it were some kind of empirical truth?

CrazyCatLord wrote:
There is such a thing as gnostic atheism or strong atheism, but that is only a subset of atheism. Unless you positively and wholeheartedly believe in the existence of a deity, you are an atheist.


I'm sure you feel that way. Thanks for sharing.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

13 Feb 2012, 9:47 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.

There is such a thing as gnostic atheism or strong atheism, but that is only a subset of atheism. Unless you positively and wholeheartedly believe in the existence of a deity, you are an atheist.


You define everything non-theist as atheist... That is definition by negation, and is incorrect.

Your supporting evidence of "This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists" is a genetic fallacy and appeal to popularity, nothing more.

Based on your definition of Atheist, the word itself means nothing, for it is simply Not-Theist. One could simply remove Atheist from every print, every page, every screen and every conversation ever had and replace it with Not Theist, and it would be the same. This is, however, not the case. Atheist means more than just Not Theist; it implies the exact opposite as a Theist, not simply not being one.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

13 Feb 2012, 9:48 am

CoMF wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.


Then why do some Atheists frequently assert that the existence of "God" (whoever that is) is an impossibility as though it were some kind of empirical truth?


Atheists who do this are gnostic / "strong" atheists.

Note that atheists can hold different positions in regard to different god concepts. When presented with a logically inconsistent "holy" book, I will also maintain that a particular god model is contradictory and therefore impossible. But I'm agnostic / "weak" in regard to a generic creator god or Deist / Pantheist gods, because those gods are undisprovable. I'm nonetheless an atheist because I don't believe in them.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

13 Feb 2012, 9:53 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.

There is such a thing as gnostic atheism or strong atheism, but that is only a subset of atheism. Unless you positively and wholeheartedly believe in the existence of a deity, you are an atheist.


You define everything non-theist as atheist... That is definition by negation, and is incorrect.

Your supporting evidence of "This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists" is a genetic fallacy and appeal to popularity, nothing more.

Based on your definition of Atheist, the word itself means nothing, for it is simply Not-Theist. One could simply remove Atheist from every print, every page, every screen and every conversation ever had and replace it with Not Theist, and it would be the same. This is, however, not the case. Atheist means more than just Not Theist; it implies the exact opposite as a Theist, not simply not being one.


That is exact definition of atheism :) The Greek prefix "a" stands for "not" or "without". Atheism means exactly the same as non-theism, unless we are talking about a specific position on the atheism spectrum (such as strong/gnostic atheism).



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

13 Feb 2012, 10:08 am

Religion isn't irrational--it runs on the rules of logic just like science does. Anything else is superstition, not religion. If something's illogical, it can't be true. Science relies on experiment as well as just logic, though, and that's where they differ. If you can't put something in a test tube, then it's not in the domain of science.

Regarding the compatibility of religion and history: Studying the political climate of the Middle East in AD 30 is not incompatible with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. They are different ways of understanding similar topics. Both are ways of revealing truth. Things like science and history are about studying the world God made; they are not incompatible with studying God himself.

Science can be done without religion because it is a more specific field than philosophy--a specific subcategory of philosophy, the use of logic to understand the natural world. The scope of science extends only to things that are testable or observable; and once you get to infinities beyond the universe, you are beyond the scope of science. But--oddly enough--religion cannot be studied without taking science into account. It is like trying to write a biography about Einstein without talking about his theories. You can study relativity without knowing a thing about Einstein; but if you want to know about Einstein, you have to know what he created.

I'm not saying that every pastor should also be a scientist. But I am saying that without an appreciation of the world around us, we would be missing a good deal of information about God. Study the painting to understand the artist--and nature is God's painting.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

13 Feb 2012, 10:10 am

I really get the impression that for most theists the polarity of both their rewards and struggles have stayed within the lines of their respective religion's stances on life, the world, and reality. For a lot of auties though the struggles we face, the things we have to do in order to self improve or get by, seem to be so far outside the lines that our realities seem to bare little to no resemblance to standard archetypal struggles of that sort. That's likely how it ends up counter-intuitive from the start.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

13 Feb 2012, 2:22 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.

There is such a thing as gnostic atheism or strong atheism, but that is only a subset of atheism. Unless you positively and wholeheartedly believe in the existence of a deity, you are an atheist.


You define everything non-theist as atheist... That is definition by negation, and is incorrect.

Your supporting evidence of "This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists" is a genetic fallacy and appeal to popularity, nothing more.

Based on your definition of Atheist, the word itself means nothing, for it is simply Not-Theist. One could simply remove Atheist from every print, every page, every screen and every conversation ever had and replace it with Not Theist, and it would be the same. This is, however, not the case. Atheist means more than just Not Theist; it implies the exact opposite as a Theist, not simply not being one.


That is exact definition of atheism :) The Greek prefix "a" stands for "not" or "without". Atheism means exactly the same as non-theism, unless we are talking about a specific position on the atheism spectrum (such as strong/gnostic atheism).


You know its a rather meaningless descriptor then, as even inanimate objects are thus atheists. No, I really don't care what the root word means, the origin of the word came in a time when theism was so common that simply not being one held all the meaning anyone cared about. You were either with them, or against them. I still maintain that a truer meaning for atheist is someone who believes there is no god.

If atheist does not mean that, then what does?


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Feb 2012, 4:26 pm

CoMF wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
*sigh* Atheism is not the assertion of divine non-existence :) Atheism is simply lack of god belief, no more and no less. This must be the most commonly invoked explanation by atheists.


Then why do some Atheists frequently assert that the existence of "God" (whoever that is) is an impossibility as though it were some kind of empirical truth?



It depends on which "god". You can disprove or at the very least make theism an excessively hard position to hold, however deism cannot be refuted. If you want to get technical about it, I'm an agnostic anti-theist, however I can't say that without having 98% of people stare at me with wide open eyes and their mouth agape.