Autism and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

It's perfectly possible to have no belief in a deity for which no evidence has been presented for its existence.



The onus is on the person proposing the supposed god to provide positive evidence for the existence of said god. Without evidence, or even a falsifiable definition, I cannot even begin to form an opinion let alone a "belief." It has nothing to do with "rejecting concepts of god out of hand," merely reserving judgment on aforementioned concepts until there is an actual reason for embracing them. It's entirely possible for a "god" to exist; however, I currently have no reason to believe any of them do. That's hardly "rejecting" concepts of god "out of hand," such as it is not embracing the ones for which there is no reason for me to believe. Which is pretty much all of them at this point.

I have no more reason to "believe" in any god than I do the purple kangaroo in my closet. Both have a similar amount of evidence in their favor.

You completely miss the entire point. I am performing a meta-analysis of the concept non-belief. You keep talking about the onus of proof. These are completely unrelated. Surely you can see that?

For me, it's just that I don't think I'm really capable of believing in God.

I don't know if that's how most Austistic people who are atheists feel. It's like telling me the sky is purple. It's not purple...I can't really *imagine* something that I can't see.

I don't make a case against God, though. I have no reason to. I guess I could call myself an agnostic atheist or a weak atheist. I don't go with agnostic completly because I personally don't believe in God but I don't think that it means he DOESN'T exist, because I know that I have no way of knowing that.

Actually, I'm talking about "evidence," not "proof."

And they're not unrelated if one's "belief" rests with the existence of evidence (or, more specifically, an actual "reason" to believe, which may or may not be the same thing).

Then use the word evidence.

And yes, in an analysis of the concept non-belief, evidence is irrelevant. Remove the concept god from consideration.

Call it "A". Do you have beliefs regarding "A"? Not yet, as it has no form. You have genuine non-belief - a null state that is fully indeterminate. But once I supply form to "A", you can discuss your beliefs regarding that form. You can discuss the nature of those beliefs, whether those beliefs are based in evidence of speculation, whether those beliefs are valid or invalid. But because there is form, you can no longer have non-belief. The null state is forever banished. You can no longer have no beliefs regarding "A"

Returning to the concept of god, if an atheist is asked "do you believe that god exists" and they answer "I have no beliefs regarding god", they are asserting they are in a null state of belief. But that is inaccurate, because without any further explanation, the question "do you believe god exists" has sufficient form that is is not necessary to provide anything else to imbue the question with meaning. The meaning is clear. You can legitimately assert that the question does not define any particular theistic construct, but it is sufficiently clear that it can be answered by a simple yes or no. Atheists that refuse to answer with a simple yes or no and instead issue a cryptic, intellectual sounding ""I have no beliefs regarding god" are deluding themselves as surely as any of Richard Dawkins' antagonists in The God Delusion.

If that "form" is given a falsifiable definition for which evidence can be presented, then yes. If not, which no god I'm currently aware of has a falsifiable definition, then my "beliefs" regarding A are, in fact, in abeyance.

I can speculate, debate, and ponder various aspects of any god you wish to throw at me, but that's me having opinions on speculation and argumentation, not the ultimate existence of any particular god. And, as already stated, there is no god currently defined that I have a "reason" to believe in. Reason first; belief later. Anything in between is just chatter.



You need to first define "god," after which I can only give my answer to that question if evidence is presented that definitely proves or disproves said god. "God" is not, nor ever has been, self-explanatory.



See above.

When I string together the three letters g, o, and d, into the word god, that word is a referent to something in your mind without any discussion to anything that exists mine. You have beliefs regarding what "god" refers to in your mind. To say you are without beliefs regarding that is false.

I would like to see something different from what I have heard so far which are rants against Judeo Christianity, religions like Islam and mocking the RCC. There seems to be this polarization.

"God" in my mind refers to any number of concepts as set forth by any number of people for which there is no reason for me to believe in. That's not inconsistent with a lack of belief in the existence of a god.

I'm perfectly aware of various concepts of "god." That's a very far cry from either "believing" in them or "believing" they don't exist. "Awareness" of god concepts does not necessitate beliefs either for or against those concepts.



Would I be correct in assuming that you refer to the individuals on WP who respond to any mention of religion with, "THAT SUCH BULLLSHH!!!TTT!! !!"

There's always an obnoxious element present in any group of people. Speaking personally, like I've stated elsewhere, there is no room in a rational discussion for insults, and that includes against theists. I only become aggressive with people who become aggressive with me. Personally, I've met many educated, logical theists of sound mind who, while I didn't agree with their reasoning, still struck me as very intelligent.

^ A sensationalist element exists in segments of the atheistic community. This element tends to be the most visible. The rationalists peering into the possibility of the fully evolved are sometimes obscured to the point not many people realize they are there.

This is sad but true. I have had some truly fascinating discussions with atheists and theists alike. And some "discussions" that were an utter waste of time.

I notice with atheists, it is often morality they have a quarrel with, not so much the realization of a God.

I'm not sure I would like to attribute atheism to being a part of who one is. It might be more appropriate to consider atheism to be a current state of one's ideas, possibly subject to change if given empirical evidence. Suppose I believe the sky is blue on a clear day. Does that make me a blue-ist? The sky is blue whether I believe it is or not. If the sky were red, my blue-ist belief would be wrong. The color of the sky is a property of the sky itself and not of the believer. However, correctness of one's belief in this case can be verified by looking up.

Why would an atheist have a quarrel with morality? Does the self-granted freedom from demons looking over one's shoulder make one free to engage in debauchery of the likes of the Marquis de Sade? Well, not really, because it turns out that many of the "sinful" things are at least indirectly harmful to oneself, and some are directly harmful for the body. It would seem that one who believes this is the only body you get would be even more motivated to avoid unhealthy behaviors than a religious person would be.

Why would I think that? I don't know you.
The reason I would not date an athiest is because there would be no connection. I can guarentee it. That's pretty much what it comes down to.

Not that this even matters, I just thought I would butt in with my two cents and my personal opinion in regards to athiests.

Judging by other forums I'm on, I don't think there's much difference in the ratio of religious people to atheists posting. That seems irrespective of AS to NT, left wing to right wing, male to female.

I guess it might just be my perception.

Well....i'm pretty sure you've read several of my posts before and I know I say some stuff some people (perhaps alot of people) may find offensive or "politically incorrect". Keep in mind i'm about as extreme "left" as Americans get or at least i'd be defined as such by many Americans. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist and yes, I am a staunch atheist as well. I say this because it's USUALLY those on the "right" in America who complain about the "political correctness" of the "left". I say there's just as much of it on the right.... but that discussion is for another thread and probably one in PPR.

Nonetheless...I refuse to censor myself just for the sake of pleasing others who don't like what I have to say. I might do so in order not to alienate an employer, professor, college/uni official, etc...but not for the "average person on the street". Some guys are so desperate to "get laid" they will censor themselves around women they're attracted to. I am not among them and I find that sort of cowardice and weakness repulsive quite frankly.

No worries about your reasons for not wanting to date atheists. They seem fair enough I suppose I just thought you might be misunderstanding what it is that MOST (like myself) atheists actually believe (or more accurately....don't BELIEVE in. few of us are arrogant enough to say we're CERTAIN there is no god, nothing beyond the material universe, etc....) in. It would appear you do understand what the more reasonable atheists believe though and thus there is no issue here