Why We Have Aspies

Page 4 of 4 [ 56 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Angelus-Mortis
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 438
Location: Canada, Toronto

28 Nov 2007, 11:57 am

militarybrat wrote:

Angelus-Mortis on a wide scale, ie everyone has to think so, I do not think religion explains it, but for an individual or a group of individuals it does, because it forms the explanation they need and doesn't hurt anyone.
It is not science job to explain why something like Asperger's Syndrome exsists beyond mere mechanics, ie its genetic, brain abnormalities exctra (which doesn't cover the full meaning of why as it doesn't go into the need of this particular disorder), it tells the how and what of it that is all. If people want a deeper understanding of why (other than it just happens) they can only find it inside themselves. Whether its a way of explaining why so they understand, accept or find comfort, that is up to the individual.
What I was doing with my Biblical analogies was showing the problems with or filling in extra information for some of the proofs given by people.
nominalist as pederasty just means a relationship between a man and a male youth it doesn't fully cover the original meaning as that was a specific type or relationship not a generic one.

That's the problem. I have difficulty seeing how the existence of Asperger's has to be explained in a unscientific way. Afterall, asking how it exists is a valid scientific question that can be discovered and analyzed in a scientific manner. You still seem to be getting at how people cope with having Asperger's, or some moral reason for why they have it that is not necessarily true.

_________________
231st Anniversary Dedication to Carl Friedrich Gauss:
http://angelustenebrae.livejournal.com/15848.html

Arbitraris id veneficium quod te ludificat. Arbitror id formam quod intellego.

Ignorationi est non medicina.

militarybrat
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 348

28 Nov 2007, 12:24 pm

Angelus-Mortis your intitled to that opinion but others to theirs as well. Truth has different levels not all of it rests in one field or under one limited definition. Scientific truth and philosophical truth are different but one is not less valid than the other. Philosophical truth tends to be more complex though. What I'm talking about isn't simply dealing with the disorder, though that is a large part of it, but if you look at the scientific explanation and how aspies apply it you should see the simularities. People use science to cope as well. I don't think I talking about moral reasons because morality is a code of action, thought and believe based on ethical considerations and while it can be applied internal tends to have an external quality. Having a disorder as far as I can tell has nothing to do with morals. How people respond to those with a disorder might but I'm not dealing with that in this post.

jfrmeister
Velociraptor

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

28 Nov 2007, 3:40 pm

Goldenheart wrote:

Fact: Scientists have no clue where autism and Asperger's came from, or why the heck they exist.
Hypothesis (mine): They're looking at the wrong information.
Elaboration on Hypothesis: Medicine and science have no bearing on the purpose of the autism spectrum. The true purpose of Aspies is actually religious.
Supporting Evidence: There is plenty to back me up in the Bible. The description of the ideal Christian is the perfect description of many Aspies. Consider these Bible verses, with corresponding Aspie behaviors:

"Do not conform to the patterns of this world." -Romans 12:2a. In case you haven't noticed, Aspies behave differently than ordinary people.
"Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." -Matthew 12:30. Many Aspies have one all-consuming passion. I think the original purpose of that was to turn that passion towards God.
"Do not bear false witness against your neighbor." -I forget where that is. Most Aspies almost never lie.

There's plenty more, but being a lazy person who's supposed to be doing her work, I'm not going to post them right now.

Oooh wonderfull!! ! a "god of the gaps" argument" (otherwise known as an argument from ignorance) or an "either or" falicy.

Because science hasn'r answered the question of autism 100%, (science never answers ANYTHING 100%) religion thinks it has the right to stick it's nose where it doesn't belong.

All that you've none here is take some vauge biblical passages ond shoehorned them into the argument YOU want to make. Any ret*d 5 year old could do what you just did. :evil:

_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson

militarybrat
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 348

28 Nov 2007, 4:46 pm

Why do most people seem to assume that science and religion are exacte opposites or enemies that can't interact togeather with the same issues?
Why do some issues belong soley to science and some soley religion without interlap?
Science wasn't meant to counter religion. Religion wasn't meant to downplay science.
These two areas are not on the same field and often cover different aspects of the same things(ie the environment, people, illness).
I agree with jfrmeister in the fact that the originally bulleton followed eliments of the either/or logical falicy by stateing that science has no bearing on autism. However, I disagree with jfrmeister as useing the same falicy when saying that religion doesn't belong in autism issues.
They both can have a place, albet over different issues and aspects of the larger concept.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

28 Nov 2007, 4:59 pm

IMO, there is no such thing as "religion'" There are different belief systems which conform, or do not conform, to various definitions of a word (religion). Depending on the definition, certain belief systems may be included or excluded.

Likewise, "science" does not exist. It is merely a convenient label for fields of study which utilize various inductive-deductive methods for observing empirical phenomena.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

militarybrat
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 348

28 Nov 2007, 7:22 pm

So basically your saying that colleges offer degrees in things that do not exsist, as you claim there is no such thing as religion or science.
I don't like tis concept because it takes the concept, labels are bad, to a completely ridiculous level. Also, I don't like the nothing is real philosophy, which this can also gall under. Acctually I find it quite ridiculous or counter intuitive.

jfrmeister
Velociraptor

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

28 Nov 2007, 7:25 pm

militarybrat wrote:

You're making reference to the 3 different models of science and religion.

1) Conflicting worlds model- Science and religion are at odds with eachother and try to descibe the same thing

2) Same worlds model- Science and religion describe the same thing in different ways and don't conflict

3) Different worlds model- Science and religion descibe completely different subjects and no overlap is possible.

I subscribe to the last model because eveything in science must be subject to veification/rejection based on the evidence. Religion introduces statements and arguments that are inherently unverifyable. Much of what religion has to say can neither be proven or disproven, therefore its methodology is incompatible with science.

_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

28 Nov 2007, 8:36 pm

militarybrat wrote:

I am rejecting categories as anything more than human constructions. Most scientists, by the way, hold to that view, as well. The opposite position, essentialism (that some categories are real), is largely passé.

Page 4 of 4 [ 56 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:

Why We Have Aspies Post Reply New Topic

Why We Have Aspies