We shouldn't associate atheism and autism.

Post Reply New Topic

Of course we shouldn't. Not all atheists are autistic. It just seems autistic people are more likely to be atheists for a number of reasons.

I'm really more agnostic than atheist. If a family at a nearby table in a restaurant said grace before eating, I wouldn't flip out at them and end up making look like a huge jerk. Of course that's just a stereotype, not tolerating anything even remotely religious even when it's not directed at you.

That's your choice, of course. My problem is that it's a faulty premise that so often gets used as a platform to spout additional B.S. or to justify ignorance.

I recognize that some people find it offensive. Empathizing it is showing that I'm not using it in that context.

When you don't give context, people can potentially take it the offensive way. Hence, the preface.

Lessons learned by life and all that.

But hey, I'm quite socially ret*d, so take that for what's it worth.

There is something to be said for desensitization.

As someone who has previously used the word ret*d in the same context, and been accused of being offensive (among thousands of other misunderstandings) I understand the desire to educate. It's a tiresome process, however, so I've decided to simply stop acknowledging ignorance. You should consider giving it a go.

I'm not offended by the word; I mean, I wouldn't use it myself, but I'm not going to get angry at other people for using it. I understood the context of your use, and I think most people would as well.

I just think when you use a word which you feel requires an addendum explaining its context with a different synonym, it doesn't make sense why you wouldn't just use the different synonym instead and save yourself the trouble. If you openly admit that you're using a word which others could find potentially offensive, I don't see why you wouldn't just use the direct synonym in question rather than adding a whole extra line of exposition. That way it's just swapping one word instead of one word plus a full explanatory sentence.

Don't get the erroneous impression that I'm criticizing you. For me, the problem isn't even with using the "r"-word, I just don't get why you'd willingly create extra work for yourself.

This thread now needs a video with the potential to open up a huge can of mutated doom-worms...!

The OP is asking for the right thing, but for the wrong reason.

Not all autistics are atheists.

And not all atheists are autistic.

Don't know of any reliable statistics on how many of either group is also the other, but my guess is that its never been shown that either: autistics are disproportionately atheists, nor that atheists have a higher than normal number of autistics in their ranks. Actually- I doubt that anyone has ever systematically studied it.

So for reasons of accuracy - that's correct- there is no reason to associate autism with atheism. Or its not yet proven that there is any connection between the two.

But the OP objects to the association, not because of scientific accuracy, but because he is afraid of bad PR for autistics.

If it were shown that more mass murderers, or more mobsters, or child moleosters or the like, were autistic then that indeed would be bad PR for autistics.

But saying "we shouldn't associate atheism with autism because it will make autistics look bad because most people hate atheists" is like saying "we shouldn't associate autism with Judaism ( or Catholicism, or Islam, or Wicca, or whatever) because it will make autistics look bad because most people hate Jews".

Bigotry is FINE...as long its not against us!

Charming!

Hmm Ill have to go to that site and make a loud presence then! Ill just say gods not real with a mischievous grin on my face.

Well, isn't that the important life lesson we usually fail to learn as kids, when our peers do? The most effective way to avoid being bullied is by giving victims a wide berth at best, or by actively supporting the bullying they undergo. It's important to mark the distinction between those who must be respected and those meant to be bullied. The latter are always at fault. As the saying goes, be mean to them---if you don't know why, they do. If they didn't deserve it, God, in His infinite wisdom, would have given them the strength to stand up for themselves.

That kinda mischief would've added some spice to the mix back when I was active on the site.

The site is still there:"The Aspie Hangout". But its kind of ghost town now. But go for it! I might see you, and Auntblabby there ( he said that he "likes ghost towns" and joined recently under the name of "AbbyNormal"), and I still drop in once in a while under the name of "radioactor" .

Ill have to post some Darkmatter2525 vids and Amazing Athiest vids as well as the Thinking Athiest vids to really stir things up! Then Ill be like "Gods not real so there! Nyaaaa!!" *sticks out his tongue* hehe

Fair comparison, although the disparity is perhaps partially explicable in terms of the nature of specific belief systems (not of all atheists, or all Christians, or indeed all members of any of the other faith traditions or philosophies, but rather in this instance the relative sense of urgency). Unless one is not only an atheist but (a) believes that on the whole one's fellow humans would be happier, wiser, or morally better if alerted to the (perceived) reality of God's absence or non-existence and (b) is sufficiently altruistic to be willing to risk making oneself unpopular, obnoxious and face ridicule in order to persuade humanity of their error, then from an internally consistent point of view (other than perhaps a philosophical and altruistic desire to share what is sincerely believed to be true) there might be less of an incentive for an atheist to proselytise or "spread the word" as it were concerning the falsity of all belief in any deity, however understood.

Now, for at least a number of Christians (and indeed for at least some adherents of a number of other religions, although there are important distinctions in terms of doctrines, view of conversion, historical practices, etc.) the situation would be rather different. If one believes sincerely in Jesus as Lord (to follow the Christian example) and in a number of other doctrines concerning the nature humans and of God, and of the predicament of the World under the oppressive bondage to sin, then quite apart from the natural excitement of wishing to tell others about both a friend, mentor, and Saviour, and indeed any subject of interest, there would be the sincere conviction of the benefits for any convert amongst one's hearers of hearing about Jesus, both in terms of changes in this life, and of hope beyond death (sorry if any of this is offensive to any or makes them uncomfortable, I have striven on the one hand to be logical and analytical, and on the other to not conceal or distort, as well as to make an attempt to explain something). While not all religions have a history of expansion beyond their place of origin (in earthly terms; this may not be the best point to get bogged down in a discussion of the ultimate origin in terms of the internal beliefs of various religious systems) nor do all have a specific theological reason why they should seek to share knowledge of their beliefs or expand the numbers affiliated with their particular religion. Sorry if that is all getting rather vague and difficult to understand.

Do you intend to persuade, ridicule, or annoy? Also, out of curiosity, what is your preferred alternative hypothesis concerning the apparent existence of the Universe, assuming you do not dismiss that out of hand as well? It is not sufficient to give the current scientific consensus concerning the known early history of the Universe; even inconceivably small points occupy some space, as well as such limited size as with any size implying boundaries and therefore space outside it, and a change - and the Big Bang certainly qualifies as a change if anything does - implies before and after, and therefore time. Therefore it is meaningless to posit that time and space began with the Big Bang (I realise many religious/spiritual doctrines might appear similarly paradoxical or logically incoherent to the point of being nonsensical from without). Logically, if one takes for granted that the hypothesis that God is a true, living and eternal being is false - or simply regards it as radically unfalsifiable, beyond the scope of science, and therefore incapable of being proved to one's own rigorously intellectual philosophical standards - then one must posit one of a number of alternative speculative theories in terms of physics that at present seem to me to have considerably LESS empirical evidence than that that might be considered as contributing to evidence for but not proof of God's existence, e.g. spontaneously generating universe, cyclical destruction and rebirth of multiple universes in a cyclical way across time, parallel worlds, etc. Not that I dismiss such possibilities out of hand, or that I would not be delighted to learn that there were indeed other worlds, but I do not see how they could be confirmed, short of actually establishing a link, but without empirical knowledge by observation rather than speculative theories, one would have no guarantee that such a feat would be safe for oneself, others, or indeed the Universe; besides, the technology is not currently close to being developed on Earth. Now to say that something is not falsifiable is not to say that it is false, implicitly impossible or internally incoherent logically, it is to say that while in theory it would be simple to demonstrate them, i.e. actual links to parallel world, or in the theist case a direct world wide revelation or miracle from God that would be difficult for the most sceptical to dismiss, etc., it is not really possible to ever conclusively disprove them so that the hypothesis is not really susceptible to testing by means of the scientific method (observe, come up with a tentative hypothesis to explain some phenomenon, test hypothesis by experimentation and/or further observation until it is either disproved, modified or verified (confirmed as true). Sorry about the long rambling reply.

Also, again out of interest, what is your personal philosophical base for your response to moral dilemmas that tend to afflict all humans on a frequent basis, assuming that you have one? All for "stirring things up" by the way if the debate is genuine, and not just alternating mutual ridicule or vitriolic (and frequently incoherent, frankly) ranting from each side in turn...

In any case, it seems to me that in practice both atheists and members of theistic faith traditions such as Abrahamic monotheisms Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as adherents of various other religions from different families of faith traditions, such as philosophical systems such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, or Greek philosophical metaphysical speculation of a comparable manner, etc., are frequently embrace from motives of emotion as well as reason, based on experience, and frequently upon relationships (in a broad sense including friendships and mentoring) with individual fellow humans, whether positive or negative, who embrace or profess to embrace a particular view of the World and in some cases God or other deities.

A big part of the problem is that 'Jesus', their 'friend', is an imaginary figure who is a 'God' and who supposedly told his followers to 'share the good news'. This is a powerful inducement to proselytize their belief system to others at the drop of a hat. That is also made worse by their (often) certainty that they are right and everybody else is doomed to a fiery 'Hell'.

Funny, you are attributing to Christians the proselytizing zeal of you atheists. We can't turn on T.V., listen to the radio, or hardly do or look at anything without having someone try to indoctrinate us into the " There is no God " cult. Your 'beliefs' have as much proof as ours, except we have God's Word and you have flawed science. Why do you people persist in attacking something which gives us comfort, when I would never dream of doing that to you?