Atheism and autism

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly.

Like how the Bible was considered such bad history for hundreds and hundreds of years because it mentioned the Hittites and there was no evidence of the Hittites anywhere...until the late 1800s when all of a sudden, archeologists uncovered proof of their existence. Whoa! You meant to tell me the Bible knew more about an entire culture than the historians all that time? And the book of Daniel, which was thought to be so extremely inaccurate as to be a joke....Then archeologists in the early 20th C found evidence in Assyrian digs that backed up the book of Daniel, proving it to be actually one of the most accurate accounts? Whoa! The Bible was proved right? And the Bible was teaching something correctly that the historians did not know until the dig showed it to be true?

Or the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the first part of the 20th C, which proved that the earliest manuscripts we have (at least of the Old Testament) are actually accurate? Kind of blew the argument that our copies of copies have "changed" over time.

Again, I will mention that in the field of science, especially in physics, we have made discoveries of things that a hundred or two hundred years ago we didn't even know existed. We do not know if the existence of God will be proven through science...but it could be, eventually, just like archeology has been slowly proving again and again the accuracy of Biblical historical claims.

I also appreciate the posting of the diagram, of which I believe I'd fall into the purple "Agnostic Theist" area, as I chose to permanently give up traditional religion and practise a secular lifestyle in my teens, despite still believing that Intelligent Design is likely as well as the "hereafter".

For some reason, I usually seem to be able to get along with most of these types who adhere to differing or what they may even regard as opposing belief-systems, whether it be Atheism or Christianity or Muslims, and have even been able to get into talks & discussions with them about the various beliefs, even when they are fundamentalist, without it turning into a head-banging ego-trip. That is not to say that I didn't used to have periods of heated clashing in the earlier parts of life, but since I am not committed or at least no longer to any particular (dis-)belief-system or (anti-)religion, that probably makes it easier to simply be in a mode of inquiry (and I treat truth-seeking or fact-checking as a personal-responsibility and therefore do not or at least no longer take it upon myself to try to argue for or against anything without first double-checking & triple-checking & comparing the information between parties).

I also want to randomly hug the nerdygirl whilst I'm at it just to hug her <hugs nerdygirl !> ^_^

Welp, brain/mind-stassis at the moment, but I'll think of something to add at another time... possibly.

I am realising how fortunate I am to live in the UK where things are more tolerant all round.

I am trying to understand the need to see things with such complete logic. I am a creative and can happily rely on my intuition, which rarely lets me down. That is not to say I think emotion should rule in my decision making. Many times I have let it happen and the result has been disaster. Logic is very useful.

If you find a reluctance for spiritual people to disucss their experience it may be because everything will likely be brushed off. A sixth sense experience can be described but be brushed off by saying it was all the five senses. Spiritual experiences outside of the person are still put down to the unconscious, or imagination. It really isn't worth talking about such things.

But can you see that people needing so much logic to live by is out of my frame of reference as the spiritual is for those demanding what I see as extremes of logic?

I don't think my thinking shows a particular NT tendency which is probably more logical.

I will PM you, if that's OK. The reason I don't want to put it out on a thread is because it is so long.

One step at a time...
New concepts take time to assimilate...
Persistence pays off...

I accept your hug, Ban-Dodger, and return it. <hugs ban-dodger>

I LIKE it !

<randomly adopts nerdygirl as an 妹ちゃん「いもうと・ちゃん」(imouto-chan [this is JP for little-sister]) & also cuddles & snuggles a bit with her too (done in Otaku-style [animé-fan] culture of course) !> ^_^

Oups, a bit off-topic, but nevermind... because I am awesome, and amazing, and handsome, and incredible, and seemingly popular, plus I got both brain as well as brawns, and oh yes I am also VERY MODEST, too !

That diagram doesn't really make any sense.

Who are the people in the black?

The people in the blue would be ...agnostics...who...are agnostic about their agnosticism. Not sure what that even means (they cant decide whether they are undecided?).

But the folks in the black would be...folks who claim that there is solid evidence for...what? Niether belief, nor disbelief in the thing in question (the existence of God)?

Isn't it something like this...:
Gnostic - Claims to Know (this could be regarded as Fundamentalist)
Agnostic - Does not make a(ny) Claim(s) as being Certain

Theist - The idea that a god or God or gods or a diety or Diety or dieties exist
Atheist - The idea that there is neither diety nor god nor God nor gods nor diety nor Diety nor dieties

How is a Venn-Diagram unclear unless you're just coming in with incompatible-definitions for discussion ?

Personally, I think it's rather over-simplified, but it was probably/possibly designed for the NT-Mind anyway.

It turns out that some portions of ancient Greek mythology were describing actual things, not made up things. Perhaps some day Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon will be proven through science.

Greek myths not necessarily mythical



Do you not realize that you are privileging the Bible for cultural reasons? Why assume that if current scientific paradigms are overturned in the future it will be because the religion that you are most familiar with turned out to be right? Why couldn't be any of the other religions that have existed through human history? Or something that is neither part of any current scientific paradigm nor part of any religion? That is the part of the belief that doesn't make sense; the idea that there are only two choices for correctness, the current scientific paradigm or whatever religion you are most familiar with.

This is nonsense. Even if fear could cause one to hope they're wrong about there being a god, that doesn't mean they are religious. They're in great fear reaching for the proverbial leaf in the wind.

You aren't being forced to pay for anyone's abortion. We all pay taxes into a common pool. Those taxes get spent by legislatures to fund government and programs run by the government. You, as a religious person don't have the Constitutional right to withhold taxes because you have a religious objection to it. You are also only paying for a medical procedure. I don't have 'lady parts', but I still contribute taxes that pay for your medical procedures if you are a women. Women also pay taxes that pay for my/our 'male parts'. I too have strong objections to some of the things we pay for with taxes. That's part of living in a free society of over 350 million people.


When you create a business, particularly if you have the only business in town of whatever type yours is, you have entered the public square. You don't have the right to control what one does with your product, then withhold it from that person to execute that control. That isn't even a matter of religious consideration. The religious among us want to inject their religious beliefs into it. You have the right to decline to write a pro gay rights message on the cake just as you have the right to decline writing a pro Nazi message on the cake. Those are your personal religious rights. They don't expand to disallow the sale of your product. Period.


We teach evolution as it is necessary to a good education to include what we know, not what biblical believers believe. Again, you can't impose your religious beliefs on others. Period. Also, the only reason you would get heavily involved in studying evolution is if you want to be a biologist. Biology makes no sense without the underlying evolution. This fact I won't debate. If you want a debate about this. I suggest this:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... ism?page=2
You'll find all the debate from people there who are more knowledgeable than I.

Please stop with these generalizing statements about "the religious among us". WHO are you talking about? The "religious among us" that the media is presenting, or specific people YOU know personally? And who are you to then take that and make that a general statement about ALL religious people? I think if you read enough posts here on WP by Christians, you would know that we are not all trying to play politics with our beliefs. I, for one, do not fit into a political box. I am a musician. If I were hired to play at a gay wedding, I would. That has nothing to do with my support or lack of support for the idea of gay marriage. I actually agree with what you say about being "in the public square", but I wouldn't have chance to explain myself, since you would lump me in with "the religious among us." Give me a break.

When we teach, we teach what we THINK we know. Do you really think that all history taught is CORRECT? All the time? We do the best we can, teaching what we know currently according to the evidence we currently have to the best of our understanding. We must always be open to being corrected. Who knows where future knowledge will lead us. I have as much chance of being wrong as do you.

You do realize that the teaching of science 150 years ago would have been dead wrong about germs, right? You do know that antibiotics are just over 100 years old and our playing around with them might now be causing superbugs?

Information changes. And it can change FAST. It is arrogant to think that one knows all. I am a Christian and "believe" in God and the claims of Jesus Christ and "believe" that Christianity is the best religious option, for lack of better words. But while I might hope that others join me in believing because I think it is beneficial, and while I might hope that I am right, in the end I cannot say absolutely that I am. I am personally convinced, but I am not going to call anyone stupid for not being convinced themselves. I am well aware that the Apostle Paul stated that if Christians are wrong and there is no resurrection and all this is a hoax, then we are "of all people most to be pitied." While I "believe", I suppose that according to the Venn diagram, I am an "agnostic Christian?"

*Everyone* comes to a point where they come to the end of their understanding and comprehension. NO ONE KNOWS ALL. At this point, no matter what one chooses (in any area of life), one must make a "leap of faith". And it gets down to this: whom does one trust?

Kind of like getting married... When I made a commitment to marry my husband, I *chose* to join my life with him and vow to remain with him until death. OK. That was a *rational* decision, that I felt was a good one based on the *evidence* I had. But, at the same time, it required a *leap of faith* because do I know FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE that nothing will happen (other than death) that would destroy our marriage? No. That cannot be known. But, I had come to the end of my knowledge and at that point had to make a decision. Do I *believe* that this marriage will work out? Yes. I *believe* it was a good choice.

Now, if someone were to come to me and give me "evidence" that my husband (or future husband at that time) was no good, I wouldn't just automatically assume that person was correct. I would take into consideration who that person is. What is that person's character, would that person have any reason to lead me astray, is that person a good judge of character, does that person make good decisions, does that person maintain healthy relationships, etc.? My accepting or not accepting of another person's "evidence" is very much based on TRUST.

If I trusted NO ONE, it would be a bit difficult to get through life. Actually, no one can trust NO ONE and be consistent. Everyone must trust someone at some point. That is faith. Making a careful examination and determining who you decide to trust is using reason.

That information changes is not the "gotcha" that you portray it as. The "arrogant scientist who thinks he knows everything but doesn't realize how much scientific knowledge has changed over the years" is a straw man. Teaching evolution as it is known today does not imply that no new information will be discovered that changes the paradigm. It is inevitable that what we now know will change in some way in the future. But it would be odd indeed to not teach the information we do just because at some future point it will be either tweaked or discarded entirely.

In the Museum of Natural History in New York City there is a display about human evolution. I brought my daughter to it and explained the different displays. The plaque that goes with the Neanderthal display case said that Neanderthals never bred with humans. I don't know when the display was created- 1970's?1980's?,1990's? Whenever it was , it turned out they were wrong about that. Neanderthals and modern humans did indeed have sex with each other and therefore kids. Everybody whose ancestors are not 100% from the African continent has a snippet of Neanderthal genes that prove it. Should they never have put that plaque up because it turned out later to be wrong?

Nowhere did I argue that evolution should not be taught.