Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

*Religion was Never Invented by NTs!*

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Oct 2008, 9:29 pm

ouinon wrote:
What I am thinking is that many central elements in religion may have been designed for, and by, people with particular, AS and/or "near-the-spectrum" issues/difficulties, and may be eminently practical in nature, like tools.

What is now called " Executive Dysfunction" may be what was once known as "lack of faith", :wink: and religion already found a cure for it, thousands of years ago. :lol: :?: 8)

So now I am wondering what other highly effective tools there might be lurking in amongst all the rhetoric ... and lists! Anyone else have personal experience of, or even a theory about, practical aspects of other important religious tenets/ideas/concepts ?
.


Aspies do perseverations, and for centuries monks have performed repetetive tasks like chanting, doing rosaries, etc. A possible link there.



Synth
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 329

12 Oct 2008, 9:36 pm

People with AS are not the only curious/creative ones, so I disagree. In fact many people (not all, not all), stick to what was programmed by their parents so I don't think so.
In fact it sorta makes sense that religion is used for the gods to inform humans of their existance for various reasons, and religions with visions of taking over the world (even if it was sort of a long time ago), or deprives humanity in any way are not valid.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

13 Oct 2008, 2:11 am

ouinon wrote:
I suggest that most/all religions were invented by people who couldn't stop asking questions, for people who not only thirsted for understanding, but who needed support structures ( mental and social ) for handling longterm projects, participating in society, coping with the predictably uncontrollable in life, etc.

The sort of questions that most religion devotes itself to answering/exploring are the kind AS ask, not most NTs. Most NTs don't seem to feel the same unceasing urge to understand that AS do. Most of them simply do what they are told.

Some NTs may have exploited/taken advantage of religious structures and concepts over the centuries, but the creators of religion, the people who most needed religious ideas/practices/explanations, were AS/neurountypical.

The currently prevailing attitude that science alone will eventually be able to answer all questions is naive, and destructive, most of all in that it makes vast reserves of religious/spiritual wisdom/understanding, ( that it has taken thousands of years to acquire ) , seem useless/irrelevant/unimportant.

.


Ok lemme stop you there. There is a lot of unfounded generalization there. There are smart aspies and there are not-so-smart aspies, and there are smart NTs and not-so-smart NTs. Statistically speaking, aspies appear to be more brainwashed from my observation than NTs are. Aspies are every bit as much if not more possessive minded than NTs, I can go on a NT forum and speak my mind without getting ripped to shreds for having an opinion; at least moreso than I can on these autism forums. It's all in the individual really, it has nothing to do with being autistic or not.

Furthermore, there is no solid proof that any of the religious prophets of the world religions ever existed, be it jesus, muhammad, etc.... The only one we have any significant evidence for is Buddha really. And Budhism is monism, as opposed to monotheism. I'm not saying that it isn't possible that any of those other prophets existed, they may have. But we'll never know for certain one way or the other. So how can you jump to the conclusion of saying "oh they must have been autistic"?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

13 Oct 2008, 2:17 am

greenblue wrote:
ouinon wrote:
"The Church kept closer to reason than Galileo".

Seems to be a creationist argument ;)
AFAIK Heliocentrism theory was already made and Galileo was the first one to provide evidence to support it, and the church rejected it at the time considering it Heresy, similar to why creationists reject evolution.


Yeah but since you say "evidence isn't truth" and "truth is only subjective", then why is your "truth" supported as an objective fact here? Now your contradicting yourself.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

13 Oct 2008, 7:44 am

snake321 wrote:
greenblue wrote:
ouinon wrote:
"The Church kept closer to reason than Galileo".

Seems to be a creationist argument ;)
AFAIK Heliocentrism theory was already made and Galileo was the first one to provide evidence to support it, and the church rejected it at the time considering it Heresy, similar to why creationists reject evolution.


Yeah but since you say "evidence isn't truth" and "truth is only subjective", then why is your "truth" supported as an objective fact here? Now your contradicting yourself.


Yes. :lol:



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

13 Oct 2008, 1:33 pm

snake321 wrote:
ouinon wrote:
I suggest that most/all religions were invented by people who couldn't stop asking questions, for people who not only thirsted for understanding, but who needed support structures ( mental and social ) for handling longterm projects, participating in society, coping with the predictably uncontrollable/uncertain in life, etc.
There is no solid proof that any of the religious prophets of the world religions ever existed, be it jesus, mohammed. So how can you jump to the conclusion of saying "oh they must have been autistic"?

I completely agree with you about there being no solid evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, Buddha, etc. Thus it is not part of my argument that "they" should have been AS/Aspergers.

Rather I am saying that many of the most significant thinkers/philosophers and writers who contributed to the creation and growth of religion, ( esp. the "spiritual"/psychological wisdom collected in religious texts and practices/teachings ), may have been AS/Aspergers/"near the spectrum", struggling with issues particularly common to AS/"near the spectrum" people, like how to deal with our disabling lack of "natural" faith, for instance.

.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,192
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

13 Oct 2008, 6:31 pm

greenblue wrote:
ouinon wrote:
"The Church kept closer to reason than Galileo".

Seems to be a creationist argument ;)
AFAIK Heliocentrism theory was already made and Galileo was the first one to provide evidence to support it, and the church rejected it at the time considering it Heresy, similar to why creationists reject evolution.


I think people just have a fear of the fact that if somethings shiny, the average person is too attention deficit and rather than reconciling it to fit the reality they know will by some short circuit in the brain alienate all kinds of things that aren't inherently disproved by any of it. All that a heliocentric solar system means is we have to be a bit more humble about our status in the universe, all that evolution means is that a lot of Genesis is a bit more allegory than something to be taken literally (and even literally - how long is a day before there is light? could have been negative infinity all the way up to the big bang really).