Theism and Atheism in the ASD community.

Post Reply New Topic

I know this question has probably been asked many many times now... but I just wanted to know how many of you who fall within the Autism Spectrum are believers vs. non-believers. Better put, how many of you follow a religion and how many do not? We will assume that Agnosticism and irreligiousness/non-religiousness are under the Atheism category.

I myself am a non-believing young Aspie, I do not follow any religion, so I consider myself an Atheist. I am completing my BSc in biology and have experience in the sciences, and based on this I personally find it difficult to explain the existence of God... however that is my personal opinion and I have absolutely no problem with other people's personal beliefs and opinions as long as they are not forced upon me. I encourage people to believe in whatever they need to in order to cope.

Obviously religion is a subject of debate... but this is not the YouTube comments section so lets maintain our composures and be respectful of each other's opinions.

Just a picky - I can get picky - being a believer does not equate to following a religion.

I by belief am among other things - there are a whole lot of things I believe, more that I reject, and you would not believe how much I am ignorant about - a Christian comfortable with the Nicene Creed.

I belong to no religious organization [affiliated with almighty few orgs of any kind], follow no party or religion or school of linguistics. Never have - never could.

Atheist since I was six, although I acknowledge there are epistemological parameters in which a god could exist.

To TheKing:

Did not realize you were at that age - a junior in high school? Oy - my Babylonian captivity in Texas!.

Anyway, as a certified [I got papers] and experience practicing scientist, and as a tribal elder - see my grey hair - not that that gets you points in this tribe - I gonna tell you:

religion properly defined [and if you are a junior in a North American high school you are going to have to get far outside the classroom to find that definition] sees and says certain things that science [as normally defined] cannot go into and should not fool with just as a sculptor should likely not publish his Theory of Everything just yet [hold off on the special cases, guys, I can adduce examples myself, you know what I am saying].

by the same token science as normally defied sees and says certain things which are not the province of religion, that religion should not pronounce on or fool around with. Just as an apprentice carpenter should probably not try to teach at the seminary [and again you know what I mean, and some of you will take it to the second level].

Most people on the spectrum are atheist from what I've seen in other threads like this. Makes sense considering we think logically.

ryan93 [I wonder where Father Paddy O'Reilly, who studied under me while I was in London, is today? Very nice guy]:

"Mhh, not sure I agree. Science says the route through knowledge is through meticulous observation and hypothesising and testing, while Religion seems to be founded on being convinced that your intuition is less fallible than that of the other 6.5 billion on the planet, and on decieving the sense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDbwtZpFo4)/taking them to be more reliable than they actually are."

I will tell you a modified version of what I told one of the few informed Muslims left in Albania at the time. I told HIM - I have read the Bible,. I have read the Qur'an, and it looks so to me. You read and you can sort it out for yourself."

Same to you - I have read in and practiced divine-entity free science, I have read in and practiced divine-entity equipped theology, and drawn certain conclusions. The fact that you say "Religion SEEMS to be founded" suggests that you are - and you have so indicated - inclined to be an evidence examiner. Which is all.

Be aware - what science - AND religion - AND socialism - AND capitalism say about themselves, as "Science says the route through knowledge is through meticulous observation and hypothesising and testing," is often - is usually - very good and true. What science practitioners and religious practitioners and socialist or captalist administrations actually DO is often nowhere near the theory.

Like the great [whatever you are in the market for] on sale at a great price, comparing the GREAT AD with the piece junk on the shelf at the store.

I was raised in a Christian household and I tried hard to be a strong believer in my teens. Problem is the more I tried the more skeptical I became. I couldn't fool myself into believing something my intuition "knew" to be made up. I've come to the conclusion that my mind isn't wired for faith. Religion is just too messy and aparsimonious to be believable or even of any use to me. I don't really 'get' the concept of God, never have, never will. I'm not really a militant atheist though either. I still value a lot of religious teachings in a practical sense. Despite all the bad stuff I still think religion can be a force for good in the world as long as people shy away from blind dogma.

Haha I love Asp-Z's comment =D
Thanks everyone for your replies, to be honest, I can't say I'm surprised with the poll results so far.

I think the problem with a lot of religion is they, through their dogma systems, confine God to a human form. I take more of a Native American or animistic view in that I see God as the totality of consciousness and us as being manifestations or branches from that consciousness. I don't think consciousness is an isolated phenomenon specific to neuron activity. I think its more like its own dimmension of reality, much like space and time. In fact, I think a lot of the paradoxes relating to space and time could potentially be briged by factoring consciousness somehow into the equation.

saganism -

I have to give you a point for that.

I do not feel fro him what you feel for La Madre, but I have no desire to see him again.

Not the same as wishing him fdead is he not or rejoicing if he is.