Atheism and autism

Post Reply New Topic

You should probably re-read or even read if you didn't about my description of paradigms & trees & forests.

Even amongst Aspies & Autistics our trees/paradigms/definition-sets can still be wildly different.

Looking at his Agnostic-Atheist idea, considering that I regard myself as somewhat of a(n) Agnostic-PanTheist, the « logic » that I was initially thinking is that you cannot be an Agnostic the moment you call yourself an Atheist, but on the other hand, I was calling myself an Agnostic despite also calling myself a PanTheist, but then again I do not regard myself as an actual PanTheist, just that my current Paradigm-Grid leans towards being PanTheist-ish, and therefore, Agnostic-Atheism is probably similar in that it leans more towards a different (but not necessarily opposite) direction, that it is an Agnosticism that may be Atheistic but not fully Atheist, just leaning further towards Atheism (I personally reject Atheism or at least Materialist-Atheism in particular on the grounds of the many erroneous & ironic beliefs of Materialists that have been thoroughly examined & ultimately dismissed as being invalid by Scientists who do actual-research & experiments into Quantum-Mechanics).

This is what I'm talking about. I stopped reading with the "pan" thing. They use that word with the gay/straight/bi stuff too and it just gets too confusing. For me, a person is either gay, straight, bi or asexual. I can understand the chart Fugu showed, but beyond that - nope. My mind shuts down. It's just too complicated.

Does that mean you would shut down at the mention of « furries » or what might be related to « beastiality » ?

(Considering that it's not part of the gay/straight/bi/asexual-categories)

BD is using pan correctly, despite being awash in a sea of nonsense. pan means 'many' or 'all', it's not just a reference to sexuality.

"There are no atheists in fox holes..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are ... n_foxholes

Wouldn't that depend on the attitude behind the comment?

The term "insinuation" is loaded with negative connotations...
However, if the remark is simply a direct statement of "fact", or should I say belief/opinion, of another individual, would you still be insulted?
If it is specifically/intentionally meant to be a derogatory/patronising remark, then yes, being insulted is one valid reaction...

Religion/spirituality embraces the emotional aspects of the human psyche...
Faith excludes rationalism, does it not?

No, faith does not exclude rationalism. See, that is exactly my point. You here are assuming that people of faith are not rational (at least in this area of life) and do not use reason do arrive at their conclusions. There is a *limit* to rational and logical thought, but that doesn't mean that people of faith do not USE logical thought to come to their beliefs.

Likewise, atheism does not exclude the emotional aspects of the human psyche.

Logic alone cannot bring anyone to either a belief in God or a disbelief in God. At a certain point, we must "jump the gap" with belief. Belief for or against the existence of God.

You don't need to believe anything. You can simply admit you don't know.

mean like forcing people to pay for abortion, forcing people to bake a cake for something that is against their religion, forcing people to learn evolution even though they disagree with it and don't believe it. everything you said can be flipped right back at you for how they attack religious people. but its ok if its religious people being attacked.

athiest tend to push evolution. that is what they believe in and they push it. everyone must accept evolution. EVERYONE!! ! have yet to meet one who doesn't. I've mean a few bigot atheists too. my friend is one. he doens't think Christians belong in the gov, military or police. only atheist should be in those.

but no one is forcing you to have an abortion or get gay married. evolution is a fact whether you believe it or not. the most famous atheist, richard dawkins, believes religion should be taught in schools because so much art is based on it. if atheists can appreciate religion, why can't young earth creationists appreciate science?

You have a very real point there: since the state is a monopoly on violence, it's bound to force someone to do something against their beliefs. Noöne should be forced to learn science, or, rather, their parents shouldn't be forced to let them be taught science, as any part of science can be against their beliefs, and they have a natural right to subject their children to whatever indoctrination they choose, too. They can similarly have beliefs against teaching them to read and write, and have every right to keep them illiterate, at least till they're adults and manage to pay for an education with their own hard-earned money as illiterate adults.

In the same vein, libertarians and right-wingers shouldn't be forced to pay for welfare.

no one is forcing you not to either, notice the laws were proposed but not passed. evolution is only a fact because you and others believe it is. wheres the missing link they keep looking for to prove it? why have we not kept evolving overt the past thousands of years? I only believe in micro evolution.

if its so true then you shouldnt' have to force it on people. let them come to the truth by themselves. I think evolution and creationism science should be be taught as options. let the kids/parents decide which they take, oh but no freedom of choice would be too much, nope got to force people to sit through years of something that is a upfront to their whole being just so you can feel right.
there's plenty of creation scientists. its not an either or. you do realize that not all or most Christians think the earth is 2, 000 years old right? you do know that gods years could been millions of years. that science could and as I think is simply our way of seeing how god did it. whole lot better then teaching "you can't get something from nothing, and something can't become something. matter always exists it just changes form" but then also say " the whole universe came from nothing. one second there was nothing then the next there was a whole lt of something" those two things counter-dict each other.

honestly the problem with super Christians and atheist is you all take the bible too seriously. its written by men, men who have no idea how god sees the universe and time. its written based on our understanding of how time and stuff works. god doesn't live on earth. hey/she has beings all over the universe. why would he use earth time and years? a day to him/her could be billions of years.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm?

writing and reading and history and math are not the same of evolution. there's a lot more to science then evolution, in facts its a rather small part of science that is taught. I love science, many Christians do. there's a lot of christian scientists. they've invented a amazing things and found amazing things. its only atheist who claim Christians don't' like or pretake in science. its only macro evolution that we don't agree about. but rather then be ok, and focus on the common beliefs you push it on us. long time ago the fact that the earth was the center of the universe and flat was pushed on people. 500 years from now evolution may be dis proven just like past facts were. see real science is ever changing and disproving itself. someone who really follows science keeps an open mind to all possibilities. lots of atheists don't . they are very close minded. super Christians ae also closed minded. as are Muslims and extreme Jews. I think I'd like to take you and all them to another planet and let them just kill each other and leave the rest of us alone in peace and let us think and believe in what we want. you forcing evolution doesn't change our minds, it just shows how mean you all are and how little you care about peoples rights and freedoms. its no wonder the same people are also anti 2nd and 4th amendments. you don't care about the first so why would you care about anyone's rights.

Brilliant...

I think you said in other post that you didn't what to discuss the nitty gritty of your beliefs...
Your prerogative...
But it would make things a lot easier if you could explain your logic.

I was brought up with religion and adopted an "inherited" belief system until the adolescent process kicked in.
When my brain was developed enough to facilitate the reasoning/logic mechanism, I discovered major inconsistencies in the philosophical structure I had inherited and from then on viewed myself as a casual atheist.

Until!...
A couple of years later I "fell in love"...
With a christian...

Because of my *emotional* involvement with my "first love", I once again embraced theism in order to strengthen the relationship...
It was an *emotional* decision to do so, not a cynical exercise...

My emotions seduced my intellect...
You may be glad to know I eventually snapped out of it...
Or perhaps not...

Now love created a fantastic frame of mind...
The world was rose coloured...
No need for glasses...
There was a reason to get out of bed...
There was a reason to get into bed...
There was a sense of feeling...
There was a sense of meaning...
It was lovely...
But it was simply a state of mind...
And it was an irrational state of mind...

To me it seems that not only can this nirvana of the senses be induced by nature's "Venus fly trap" designed to encourage the reproductive process...
This euphoria can be induced via conceptual means...
Ideas can seduce...
And perhaps, for some, can seduce more effectively than in a romantic sense...

I thank you...
<bow>
<exit stage right>