Religion (or lack thereof) and Autism/Asperger's?

Post Reply New Topic

The issue of debate is different with Christians. Most people who "debate" are either trying to push an agenda or it's more of a logical kind of sport. I see to main points of debate for Christians: As a way to teach others about who Jesus is; as a means of defending the faith. It seems like it's an exercise in futility because the Christian has no reason to change his mind or see things in any other kind of light. Now, I DO think Christians OUGHT to be more thoughtful about their faith, prayer, meditation, scriptural study, and searching to understand God and how we are to relate to other people. Christians who are new to the faith tend to be very immature and extremely zealous. Those are good qualities to have, but it does no good when all you seem to do is finger-point send everyone that doesn't believe what YOU believe to Hell. Someone who has experienced spiritual growth over time can tell you WHY he believes, not just spout off random doctrine/dogma. The real tenets of the faith are NEVER up for debate in the mind of the Christian, and the typical Christian won't be knowledgeable or disciplined in reasoned logic. That's probably why it's so frustrating. If you are used to arguing "pure" logic and you go up against a Christian, what you can expect is someone who will cling to their faith in spite of their inability to answer every single challenge. They know A is true; B sounds reasonable but contradicts A; A and B can't possibly BOTH be true; therefore, while B MIGHT be true, there's something wrong with it. I'm not saying that's good logic, I'm just saying that seems to be typical of the mind of the immature believer. My personal thought on this is that the typical unbelieving logician of the modern day has become used to the "loaded question," and Christians who AREN'T used to hearing them get tripped up by them. Someone who is good at arguing in favor of Christianity won't be distracted by issues that are completely irrelevant (like evolution vs. young-earth creationism when neither have anything to do with a person's need for salvation).

There aren't any "real" contradictions. The problem here is usually an unbeliever's unwillingness to grasp theological points. I have a huge dislike for people, even other Christians, who throw up certain famous theologians in conversation as though they actually walked in the presence of Jesus and studied at His feet--Calvin, for instance, seems to me a favorite among the more logical, philosophical types as one of the more "sophisticated" preachers/writers. While I do have some views in common with Calvinism, he's just not the go-to guy for me. I think the main source of theological information and discourse should be the Bible itself. As far as those who really understand and can explain Biblical instruction really well and who have had (for me) the most genuine personal experiences within the faith, I do enjoy reading authors like C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Cornelius van Til, and Thomas Aquinas, just to name a few. It appears to me that those who find "contradictions" are the ones who are looking for them.

The existence of an imperfect world or the existence of evil often comes up as a contradiction. But the trouble with that as a contradiction is the Bible already explained that as a result of human sinful activity. If you judge God based on a human desire, of course there appear to be contradictions! Humans show a natural tendency to dominate and enslave others, though how we've accomplished this has changed over the years (mortgages, student loans ). Therefore, it's only natural that human beings would desire a world that would eliminate the ability to make choices such that the only option would be that we are all loving, peaceful, do-gooders and evil would be non-existent. The trouble with that is we have made "good" and "evil" relative terms. You have to ask "who is to say what is good and what is evil?" Who makes the rules? If we all go about doing those things which are good to us as individuals, inevitably we open the pathways to inconsistency and risk offending other people. Therefore good and evil are by necessity NOT relative, but rather absolute. So you DON'T get to go about doing just whatever your whims and desires tell you to do. Hence a human-conceived world devoid of evil is, itself, contradictory.

God, on the other hand, already imagined and created a perfect world and placed within it a special creature (us) made in His image: The ability to create, the ability to discern right from wrong, and the ability to make choices based both on our own desires AND our capacity to do good things. What happened was that, knowing ONE evil, we chose to commit THE Sin--that being the worst possible one: Choosing to know not just ONE sin, but attempting to know ALL that was right and wrong. In doing so, we choose to err in a wide variety of ways in the futility of following God's commandments perfectly. That makes us imperfect. And an imperfect creature has no place in a perfect world. Therefore, we MADE our own world imperfect. And in such a world, evil exists as OUR creation, not God's.

Therefore, evil exists as the result of our acting on our own pride and arrogance in assuming that our knowledge and wisdom is greater than that of our Creator. It is a result of OUR doing, and thus cannot justifiably be said to be contradictory.

On the other hand, the for evil to exist, there must be a moral standard by which to judge that which is good and that which is evil. Morals are specific and HAVE to have a source, not the result of a random accident. As such, the existence of evil can also be used as evidence in favor of the existence of God.

Bioregional animist with polytheist tendencies.

I think the reason religion would rate a little lower with Aspies includes the fact that we give focus to a limited range of subjects and religion demands a lot of focus. As the saying goes, 'there ain't enough room in this town for the both of us'. So unless religion is THE focus, it will get less (not 'NO') bites.

Also religion uses a lot of peer pressure and/or other people's opinions. Aspies seem to be more interested in their own thoughts than other people's opinions.

Personally I love religion and science.

I came to the conclusion that all religion is worthless manipulative gibberish with no basis in reality when I was about eight years old. I am now just over a month away from my 32nd birthday, and I have not yet found any compelling reason to change my mind.

Where's the option for "I am very religious, but never attend services"?

Cause that's me. I put in that I "rarely" attend services, even though I never do. It seems to me that this poll is a little biased towards what OP thinks makes someone religious.

Jnana Yoga says you should probably study some more on Hinduism... and Zen Buddhism. And Taoism.

I am not agnostic nor am I atheist. I say I am atheist because its just easier to explain then what I really believe in. I do not believe there is a definite creator of the world. I do not believe in a God, I do not believe in intelligent design or some divine creator. For me religion is simply people trying to put a meaning to their lives and death because they are afraid their lives will mean nothing if it isn't religious.

I am a Naturalist or I believe in the Human Condition. No I do not think mother nature is god. Rather I believe a society and spiritualism should be based on respecting and understanding the rights of what it is to be human. I believe in the respect of human nature, the animal side and the non animal side.

I have a problem in most religions that blame someone for being a "sinful" person simply because they experienced a period of human feelings and human urges.

I do not believe in brainwashing.

All religions are a cult and I refuse to join a cult.

---

Recall a speaker saying something close to the idea that it was necessary to leave reason at the door of a church/temple/mosque whatever, and then enter and let the imagination loose, to understand what faith is/the meaning of inspiring religious stories.

There are a large number of fairytales where it is necessary to do the same thing (my view) such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White ... (1937_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard ... (1939_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pott ... tone_(film)

---

Religious science fiction movie (told under the literary device of a dream):

http://www.pilgrimsprogressthemovie.com/

---

One can look inside a dictionary and the word God is there between the letters F and H. At the same time, there are many definitions of God from God being an idea to God being as real as the sun or the moon.

In my view, the story of the invention of God comes from Judaism (Old Testament - simplified) and later, extremist Reformed Judaism varied the definition a little calling it Christianity (New Testament - simplified). The Old Testament is Symphony 1 and the New Testament is Symphony 2 (simplifed). Some prefer Symphony 1, others prefer Symphony 2, and still others prefer other symphonies invented by religious monks/nuns belonging to other religions - or, in some cases, they prefer nothing at all.

http://www.beliefnet.com/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/
http://www.eyelid.co.uk/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian_Tan_Buddha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hous ... rtnerships (Barack Obama White House)
http://www.gwmemorial.org/ (George Washington)

This is a poll for the author of this thread and I have placed my vote in the poll. I will also share my vote with you. Religious threads are not my favorite here because many members begin bashing others' beliefs. With religious beliefs among people as devout to their beliefs as we with autism, the chances of altering someone's belief is almost "0". So all I am doing is telling you my vote, and no amount of debate will alter my faith. I will also respect opposing views to mine so long as I am respected in return. That is the best way we can support our members here at the WP---with respect.

I am a Christian and attend two churches regularly. I am the church organist at one of those churches, and I am in the bell choir at the other.

Fair enough, but I think you have confused something about atheism (and possibly theism as well). I personally believe that there is no God because I don't see any reason to believe that there is one, but I'm open to any evidence that might prove the existence of God. I'm not absolutely, positively sure that there is no God, but I don't see why I should believe in one. Atheism is a belief just as Christianity is a belief. The the main differences are that atheism is not a religion and doesn't follow a particular philosophy or set of rules. The only thing that defines an atheist is that they do not believe in any deity.

That's a good position for you to be at. Like me, you are aware that there may very well be a God or not. Personally, I wouldn't go ahead believing in something before I have solid proof that it's there. Afterall, there could very well be monsters in my closet, but I don't know that. I'm not a monster agnostic just because there could be one.

But, I also agree that as an atheist, I shouldn't be dogmatic about it.

Here's a joke for you:

René Descartes walks into a bar and the barman asks, 'you're usual?'
Descartes answers, 'I think not'.
And disappears.

I'm a theist. I believe in God. I'm a seeker, meaning i haven't found a church to go to completely yet. Im interested in mysticism particularly eastern Christian spirituality. For a while I was pursuing Eastern Orthodoxy but backed away in the end, righht before i got chrismated/confirmed. I may be looking into Episcopalian/Anglican or Emergent Church stuff (I've attended Episcopalians a few times in the past few years). I also have practiced Buddhism in the past and like reading stoic philosophy. I'm basicly a religious humanist and a mystic.

I'm half atheist, half agnostic. If that makes any sense. I don't believe in a higher power, but that doesn't mean there might not be one.

Ex-Christian. Brought up in a church and force fed sermons before I could even walk. Still believe in God. Bit iffy on some areas of the Bible. Love all areas of science especially big bang theory. Christians hatin' on other religions sort of turned me off.

Religion is an insult to human intelligence.

I am a non-dualist.
very much in the Hindu tradition of Advaita Vedanta.

It just makes sense to me.
Ever since I understood it, non-dualism explains my world more than anything else.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I go to mass every week not because I'm religious, but because it's what my grandmother and mother would've wanted and it's the least I could do for them after all the things they've done for me.

The reason why I'm not very religious is because I find looking to a higher authority for help to be extremely frustrating because I don't know for sure one is real and/or they approve of anything I do. I feel I'm better off looking towards my friends and family for support and guidance, because I know they exist and I know they care for me.

im kinda religious but never go to meetings but there was no option for that. im a pagan so i practice alone and dont always remember to mark the wheel of the year like i should but its no big deal for me. dont think religious and adherant to the letter of the law necessarily go together.