Are autism and atheism linked?

Post Reply New Topic

Why is admitting that you don't know whether or not God exists lame?

If you accept that agnostic means you don't know whether or not God exists and you accept that atheist means that you don't believe he exists, you'll see that the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the way I see it, everybody, and I mean everybody is an agnostic. It's not scientifically possible to absolutely prove anything, not just God. Therefore, the most devout Muslim and the most devout atheist are equally agnostic about God. Then it becomes a meaningless word. That's why I don't use it that way.

When I use it, I usually use it to mean that you don't know whether or not you believe, in which case, you can't really be an atheist and an agnostic. You're one or the other. If that's what you're talking about, then I would agree, it is kinda lame. That confusion among the definitions kept me considering myself as an agnostic atheist, which I guess I technically am in some sense. But more accurately and more informatively, I'm an atheist.

Because it's patently absurd. I don't define my world-view by what I don't know. I live my life based on what I DO know. I don't walk around defining myself as someone who doesn't know about ancient Egyptian culture.

And then there's the issue of intellectual cowardice. You're failing to take a position on the issue. Unlike what post-modernists would like to think, you actually can prove and disprove theories routinely. We've amassed enough evidence in the 500 years since the beginning of the scientific revolution to be able to be able to make solid theories concerning the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings e.g. God. While the Theist, Christian or Muslim recognizes the evidence and works to integrate his belief system into it, the Agnostic denies the relevance of the evidence.

In the sense that you don't know if God exists, then agnosticism is lame due to the fact that it's such and obvious and relevant observation about the universe.
In the sense that you can't know if God exists, then agnosticism is lame due to the immense cowardice that such a position implies.

what if someone just doesnt care/ isnt interested in the whole affair of god existing or not existing?

agnosticism isnt just being aloof or being too cowardly to make statements regarding the existence of an entity - its the stating of the knowledge that said entity cant be known. period. thats as much a statement as a theistic or an atheistic statement, just a wiser one.

in the words of kensuke of neon genesis evangelion fame: "only an idiot fights when they know they can't win. balls has nothing to do with it"

to your first point, i agree: agnosticism isnt a revelational, sensational statement. its rather obvious and basal. thats why its a strong position.
your second point, however, see kensuke, or rather redefine your definition of cowardice. is it cowardly to see that something is impossible? to imagine something that isnt imagined is impossible, too - is admitting this cowardly? i dont think so... i find it much more cowardly to cuddle up in the cozy warmth of your theistic/atheistic statement of choice.

as for theories... as long as you're working scientifically, you can disprove theories, but not prove. this doesnt have anything to do with postmodernism, however, but with the scientific method.
science, by its very definition, does not make statements on actual existence of things at all, as existence is taken as an axiom in science. all further statements are statements relative to this axiom of an existing objective world, and hence, do not say a thing on actual existence. blurp. nothing postmodern about it, though, im sorry.

Nope.

depends where, not in Europe.

I wouldn't say that I was affected negatively by Christianity (or any other religion) before I started to question things. I just started to question things on my own and the more I researched and thought about it, the more I questioned. Getting past my own mortality and the vast sense of aloneness not believing brought were the main hurdles I had to face. It took me about five years to come to terms with the fact that I really didn't believe in a god or an afterlife.

At one point I got so freaked out by my own questioning that I became ultra religious. I came close to ditching my boyfriend (now ex-husband) and becoming a nun (I'm not joking). When I finally came to terms with it all, I felt older, like I had lost some sense of childhood (like a child leaving her parents' house and living on her own for the first time), but I felt stronger and better about myself.

It's not an easy thing to question something that was so fundamental to you for most of your life. I don't judge people who are religious because I believe religion has a purpose and that we're hardwired to believe in it. Most people can't handle the questions and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't know what I am anymore. I know I don't believe in the Bible or in any organized religion out there. My own personal experiences have made me question atheism as well as religion. There are a lot of things out there we don't understand yet and I personally think it's ok to not know what you believe.

I agree Mc Jeff> I don't see a difference between atheist and people who are religious. I think they both think they know something that in reality they could not know. I also often find that allot of people who say they are atheist are really agnostic and that the only difference of opinion I have with them boils down to a definition of a word.

IMO, there may be something to what this person said, but it would require the use of social surveys (most likely with a stratified random sample, i.e., separate random samples for autists and NTs) to resolve this issue. I do, however, find this person's explanation (difficulties in connecting with a divine being) to be questionable.

As a sociologist of religion, I might argue, for instance, that religion, for most people, is an intensely social experience. The majority of people develop their religious convictions in the context of a religious community.

Since people on the spectrum generally have, to varying degrees, difficulties in picking up on the nonverbal cues of others, they may not be as likely to derive the same sorts of benefits from religious community as do many NTs. Hence, they may be more prone to become atheists, agnostics, etc.

Neither religious people nor atheists know about God. Any being that is postulated as all powerful is not possible to detect if it chooses to be undetectable. But atheists believe there is no god because he or she sees no convincing evidence for it. Religious people may believe they have convincing evidence or may believe with no necessity of evidence. I doubt that agnostics harbor a belief in an undetectable god but I could be wrong.