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

Aspergers and religious beliefs.

Page 1 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Apr 2012, 1:30 am

I'm a diagnosed Aspie, and I'm a Christian believer of the Lutheran faith. I can only speak for myself about my faith; I can't seriously comment on how my brother and sister Aspies may or may not believe.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 Apr 2012, 1:33 am

I can say the same thing to me religion as I view it is personal to the perosn that follows a certin faith :jester:



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

01 Apr 2012, 2:40 am

I think God is pure awareness and that creation is that awareness subjectively imagining and experiencing itself through many filters of individuation.



Bun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,356

01 Apr 2012, 2:56 am

iceveela wrote:
I found an article that said that aspies are more likely to be agnostic and atheist than NT's.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/ ... agnostics/

What do you think?

As I said before, not applicable at all to Aspies I've known. It could be a cultural thing, depending on where you do your research.


_________________
Double X and proud of it / male pronouns : he, him, his


NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

01 Apr 2012, 3:23 am

It is likely true that aspies have a higher rate of agnostic/atheists than NTs.

That doesn't mean there aren't any religious aspies, folks! Of course there are. You can't just say "I'm aspie and have religion, so this article is wrong"...that doesn't make any sense at all >.<


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


Letsrave
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 38

01 Apr 2012, 6:57 am

When I was a child I thought of all supernatural things as stuff we all pretended was true, for fun or to feel good. I didnt ever really think about religion in particular until my early teens. After encountering fundamentalists I realized just how serious they were about believing in god, and began to wonder why someone would embrace an irrational belief rather than admitting ignorance. This became an obsession quickly as it was the first time I had really pondered the irrelevancy of my existence. All the time I would try to believe, my mind would race as I tried to think up a rational justification for belief in god. I just wanted to be able to believe and not have to fear death. Unfortunately the only arguments I could make for the existence of god, was relabeling our ignorance with the word "god"



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Apr 2012, 7:01 am

Letsrave wrote:
When I was a child I thought of all supernatural things as stuff we all pretended was true, for fun or to feel good. I didnt ever really think about religion in particular until my early teens. After encountering fundamentalists I realized just how serious they were about believing in god, and began to wonder why someone would embrace an irrational belief rather than admitting ignorance. This became an obsession quickly as it was the first time I had really pondered the irrelevancy of my existence. All the time I would try to believe, my mind would race as I tried to think up a rational justification for belief in god. I just wanted to be able to believe and not have to fear death. Unfortunately the only arguments I could make for the existence of god, was relabeling our ignorance with the word "god"


from Corinthians.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me

ruveyn



Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

01 Apr 2012, 7:18 am

It was an interesting well thought out article. However, after years of debating the Christian Faith it seems to me that the deciding factor is not logical thought, but the way people choose to live. The logic is in the justification.

Spiritual experience is very real, but then how would you know. I mean would God really bother to make Himself known to people who don't want him in any case.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

01 Apr 2012, 8:42 am

So I'm supposed to magically start "wanting" something in my life for which no evidence exists?
How's that mental process work?

Interesting how this god only "reveals" herself to those who already believe.
Telling.

Nope, 'fraid "spiritual experience" isn't actually real. Absolutely nothing empirical evidences it

There's a great deal of evidence for things associated with spiritual experiences,
even the positive benefits of those things,
like meditation,
but then meditation can be done without all the "god" gookery.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

01 Apr 2012, 9:37 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
So I'm supposed to magically start "wanting" something in my life for which no evidence exists?
How's that mental process work?

Interesting how this god only "reveals" herself to those who already believe.
Telling.

Nope, 'fraid "spiritual experience" isn't actually real. Absolutely nothing empirical evidences it

There's a great deal of evidence for things associated with spiritual experiences,
even the positive benefits of those things,
like meditation,
but then meditation can be done without all the "god" gookery.


You can want things for which no evidence exists easily enough. There's no magic about it though.

You misquote, who says believe is the same as want. There is a very big difference.

I am really thinking you have scarcely read my post at all. But how would you know spiritual experience isn't real? It means a stepping outside of solidy, feely existence, or receiving something more than solid, feely existence within. Needless to say there will always be somebody with a reason why it is not genuinely spiritual. Spiritual experience is not a matter of logic. It can be induced by drugs, say Meth-D. I'm not sure about that though. Maybe it just makes the experience quicker to come by. But the burden of proof is on you to say why drugs do not give a genuine spiritual experience. After all I am not to bothered what you think. And besides that how do you really know you exist? Prove it to me. Russell proves This Table Is Not A Table. Maybe he could have used the same line of argument to prove you do not exist. I think Descartes gives the easy answer. Isn't it stupid to say that you think you exist, but I think you do not.

So, what do you think of Maya?

Are both Maya and Russell saying that solid thing in front of us is not there at all? Couldn't they be saying it is there, but is possibly not what you think it is.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

01 Apr 2012, 10:03 am

Grebels wrote:
You can want things for which no evidence exists easily enough. There's no magic about it though.

How does wanting something translate into belief in it?
Grebels wrote:
But how would you know spiritual experience isn't real?

Because knowledge isn't subjective. Nothing empirical supports the notion of "spiritual experience".
Grebels wrote:
It can be induced by drugs, say Meth-D.

Chemically-induced hallucinations are "spiritual experiences" now?
I get in a near-orgasmic state eating burritos- maybe that's a "spiritual experience".
Grebels wrote:
But the burden of proof is on you to say why drugs do not give a genuine spiritual experience.

ROFL. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic. :lol:
The claim is yours- the effects of drugs are well-documented, and none of the research involves magical feelings.
The affirmative position is the one you've taken, and thus the burden of proof. I'll wait as long as it takes.
Grebels wrote:
After all I am not to bothered what you think.

I can stick my tongue out, too. See? :P
Grebels wrote:
And besides that how do you really know you exist?

I don't. But then, I'm not claiming to know, am I?
Grebels wrote:
Prove it to me.

"Proof" is antithetical to the entire basis of science.
Grebels wrote:
Isn't it stupid to say that you think you exist, but I think you do not.

Much less stupid than to claim "knowledge" of grandiose magical beings and then dare to say it's my burden to disprove such delusions. :lol:
Grebels wrote:
So, what do you think of Maya?

Who's that?
Grebels wrote:
Are both Maya and Russell saying that solid thing in front of us is not there at all? Couldn't they be saying it is there, but is possibly not what you think it is.

I think they're probably saying that if you want to make claims, you shouldn't get plucky when asked for evidence. That's my interpretation.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


iceveela
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 438

01 Apr 2012, 10:50 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
Grebels wrote:
Prove it to me.

"Proof" is antithetical to the entire basis of science.


Shut up. You know perfectly well what he means by the word "prove", he is saying to give him evidence to convince him either way. It doesn't take a english teacher to be able to 'prove' this point to anyone. I hate the whole "'proof' is a math term" type of crap. Evidence, which is used interchangeably with "proof", is the entire foundation that science is built upon.

Saying stuff like this is what makes your argument seem dull and negligent.


_________________
Aspie score: 164/200
NT score: 60/200
You are very likely an Aspie!

AQ: 36


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

01 Apr 2012, 10:54 am

iceveela wrote:

Shut up.

Goodness. Was that called for?
iceveela wrote:

Evidence, which is used interchangeably with "proof",

No. No, it isn't. Not in the types of discourse related to empiricism.
iceveela wrote:
Saying stuff like this is what makes your argument seem dull and negligent.

I've made no argument- I'm simply waiting for an argument in support of his assertions.

I'm genuinely-sorry, though, that someone p!ssed in your cornflakes.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

01 Apr 2012, 11:05 am

Aspies are logical. Believing fairy tales is illogical. Therefore, yes, many Aspies are atheists :P



iceveela
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 438

01 Apr 2012, 11:06 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
iceveela wrote:

Shut up.

Goodness. Was that called for?
iceveela wrote:

Evidence, which is used interchangeably with "proof",

No. No, it isn't. Not in the types of discourse related to empiricism.
iceveela wrote:
Saying stuff like this is what makes your argument seem dull and negligent.

I've made no argument- I'm simply waiting for an argument in support of his assertions.

I'm genuinely-sorry, though, that someone p!ssed in your cornflakes.


Yep, it was you. Get your argument correct before posting it. And yes, they are used interchangeably, to believe otherwise is pure ignorance.


_________________
Aspie score: 164/200
NT score: 60/200
You are very likely an Aspie!

AQ: 36


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

01 Apr 2012, 11:13 am

ValentineWiggin[/quote]
How does wanting something translate into belief in it?
[quote="Grebels wrote:

I could want a Ferrari but not believe I could have it. I expect you will agree. But here we really do get onto sticky ground. We can want things but not even be aware of the fact. We can have inbuilt needs for things we need not realise exist.

Quote:
.Because knowledge isn't subjective. Nothing empirical supports the notion of "spiritual experience".


I have already agreed that there is no proof for God's existence. I am sure we both know how many years the best minds have been arguing that point to no conclusion.

Quote:
Chemically-induced hallucinations are "spiritual experiences" now?
I get in a near-orgasmic state eating burritos- maybe that's a "spiritual experience".


I wouldn't know this about drugs personally. I have read the claims, but it is well accepted.

Grebels wrote:
But the burden of proof is on you to say why drugs do not give a genuine spiritual experience.

ROFL.
Quote:
The burden of proof is never on the skeptic. :lol:

The claim is yours- the effects of drugs are well-documented, and none of the research involves magical feeling

I wonder who writes this stuff. Again I am not sure that proof is possible. Maybe ask the indians who use the stuff.

Quote:
Much less stupid than to claim "knowledge" of grandiose magical beings and then dare to say it's my burden to disprove such delusions. :lol
:

Isn't it obvious that theology has nothing to do with science. Oh, good you got my drift. But don't scientists place the burden of proof on themselves. In Rutherford's time some scientists thought it was all just about complete. There was nothing else to be answered. How nice. Now it is becoming obvious science is only at the beginning of knowledge. Wheeler and Bohm tried to give answers, but they may be accused of having another agenda. They were both, I have read, Bhuddhists. So all the time we have scientists convinced they have found a theory to explain things, but it is later proved to be full of holes. Even scientists agree that the concept of a theory has limits. I think Bohm with the Implicate Order has come closer to explaining things. I don't feel the need to agree with everything he said though.

Quote:
So, what do you think of Maya?

Quote:
Who's that?

You are serious? Maya is the Hindu belief that all is illusion.
Quote:
Are both Maya and Russell saying that solid thing in front of us is not there at all? Couldn't they be saying it is there, but is possibly not what you think it is
I think they're probably saying that if you want to make claims, you shouldn't get plucky when asked for evidence. That's my interpretation.


Philosophy was never my subject and I might well and truly lose my way discussing Russell.

Certain scientists are being very definite. Whilst they claim God does not exist there are, however, many thing they simply cannot explain. I give them full marks for trying. Perhaps you are aware of all the constants and math involved in the Universe. Did these things all just happen. If you believe in the Big Bang, then so do many believers. But a Big Bang that just happened to fall in place with rather less chance than a million monkeys typing a Shakespeare sonnet, or dare I say than me winning the lottery?