AS Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, if you take logic to its logic conclusions the "burden of proof" lies with the theists. While "lack of proof" does not = disproof, the fact that ANY blind assertion (that defines itself as unproovable) falls into this category is telling. If someone asserts something and then defines itself as "unproovable" I am CERTAINLY not going to live my life around it.

Logic does not come into play when a religiong tells you "god's name is stephen." Logic comes into play when somone says ANYTHING purporting to describe reality in ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER.

I would very much like to hear about this historicity you speak of, keeping in mind that I do not accept biblical assertions as historical proof. It may derail the conversation to post it in this thread, though. A private message would be fine.

I like the distinction that others have drawn between atheism and agnosticism. Rejecting a claim's validity is not the same as asserting its opposite. Those that try to avoid the question of whether they believe in a god by saying, "I'm an agnostic", have two problems. First, they don't understand the meaning of the word. Second, they're afraid of theists getting mad at them for coming to a rational conclusion... well, not a very strong conclusion, but rational at least. I don't believe in santa claus, but I'm not prepared to say that I know for certain that he doesn't exist. I think the probability is extremely low, but it's irrational to claim 100% proof of anything, aside from math and logic proofs.

You "agnostics" should look up the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist". I found dictionary.com to have excellent definitions for both. As for me, I'm just an atheist. I don't assert that there are no gods. I don't accept any of the gods I've been presented with, either. I'm not agnostic, either. Nor am I gnostic. I don't have enough reason to believe knowledge of a god is knowable or unknowable. I think the probability of a god, such as is in the bible, HIGHLY unlikely, and even were I given conclusive proof of his existence, I certainly wouldn't worship him.

As for Dawkins, I've never read him, so I can't comment on whether I'm ashamed of him or not. Ayn Rand first set me on the path toward atheism, away from fundamental christianity. The only book I've read strictly on atheism is "God is not Great," by Christopher Hitchins, which I enjoyed immensely. Of course, I was already atheist at the time, so I may have been biased.

Emm...

Osiris WASN'T born of a virgin mother. Osiris was a man, but rebirth as inmortal. And Mitra DON'T influyed on christianity; i was reversed. Mitra don't born of a virgin mother and other things.
And none of these gods have 12 discipules and making miracles and these blabla of Zeitgeist and other pseudodocumentals showing forced similarities. Religions should be compared in cosmovision, not in elements of it.

A historical Jesus is mostly accepted in the historician comunity, and very large amount of studies, just find it. If Muhammad exists, Buda exists, etc. Why is ilogical the existence of a Jew carpenter?

After reading that I can only say that I am glad you are theistic. Because the sentiments you have displayed in this post are ABOLUTELY appaling and not worthy of the lowest of the low human beings.

Such a shame your autistic daughter caused you misery. Such a blessing a child surely had on your life. I for one, am absolutely disgusted and can say (as an atheist) I hope you burn in whatever hell you believe in for writing such trash about your offspring. It is only a reflection on yourself, not your beliefs. I have known and been friends with a catholic boy, and you would surely not be worthy to lick the soles of his boots.

Last edited by Izaak on 05 Oct 2009, 1:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I mis-spoke. My logic gets in the way whenever someone claims to know anything about god and what he/she wants.

I can't say for sure about Buddha, as I am primarily obsessed with Judaism and its offshoots, but in the case of Muhammad, there are documented accounts of his existance outside of the Quaran. There are NO extra-Bibilical accounts of Jesus, the Christ. And historians agree with the very opposite of what you claim they believe. And this is not a biased opinion, this is fact, as taught in most seminary and divinity schools.
You should read Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. There really isn't a lot of new information in the book, but it does a nice job of collecting the relavant data into one book and explaining it in a very non-confrontational way. It's not as "offensive" to the Christian sensibilities as, say, Dawkins or Hitchens (both of which I like).

There have been polls conducted on Wrong Planet, usually showing a plurality of atheists/agnostics. These are, of course, highly unscientific polls.

It may be because atheists/agnostics seem, more generally, overrepresented (or perhaps over-participative) in web polls. Or it could be because of one neurobiological hypothesis for the universality of religion, proffered by the magnificient PZed.

Of course, what is the cause of Asperger's? A less active mirror neuron system. If there's any merit to this neurobiological hypothesis it may well explain why Aspies (as anacedotal evidence seems to indicate) are, generally, less religious than the population at large.

And that is the reason. Aspies have less empaty, less level of abstraction (can't achieve to the surreal abstraction of NT). And if take religion (not God. Religion=/=God) like another social institution I don't surprise me the AS have a tendency to agnosticism/atheism/deism/more mecanic ultimate explanations/ asdf.

exist the scientific polls?

PD: please don't take seriusly this post

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt72181.html

^ Old, unscientific poll, showing a majority of Aspie atheists (sample size of High Functionign ASD population = 204).

Again, it'd really be lovely to see actual scientific and statistical research on this front.

Don't wait a scientific poll in a forum
(really, don't wait a scientific poll anywhere)

The question, i think, are bad made.

The questions to answer must be:

ask if i follow a religion? (Including the atheistic/materialist/non theist religions)

or

ask if i believe in God? (whatever conception or filosofical position)

In a case of AS vs NT this two questions meter two diferents aspects:

The first can meter integration with a social group and the second the level of abstraction or "logical" (NT logic?) thinking.

But mixing both questions is a mess D:!

Well, I see i waste my time studying on the humanism elective

Sorry but you don't understand me (because my english is bad): the mayority of the serius historian agree in existence of a historical jesus. And isn't a belief, is a fact. You can search in the english Wikipedia entry.
anyway, my english are very bad, and don't like made half sentences y asdf

Last edited by Glutamate on 05 Oct 2009, 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This thread was a whole lot nicer and, IMHO, more interesting when it was in the general forum. Why can't this forum continue a thread in the vein in which it was created? Sorry, its just frustrating for me.

You've made broad assumptions about what the poster means that most likely aren't true. Most Christians I know persoanlly don't believe the Bible has to be read literally, and if it is not read literally, then all the things you mentioned don't need to be true for the essence of the faith to be represented. It is my understanding that there is historical evidence that a man, Jesus, lived and made an impression upon history. There is no historical evidence of the manner of his birth or death, and that isn't particularly relevant. You want to throw out the baby because there is some stuff in bath water that may well have taken a few cues from other myths and not be historically accurate. No one really knows what is the bath water. Most of us aren't looking at the bath water, we're looking at the baby.

I disagree (shocker, I know). The poster made a claim that there is historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. While it is an assuption that he meant the Jesus in the Bible, I think that is a valid assuption to make. The fact is, there is no historical evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus exsisted, and that is the point that is being argued in the above post.
If you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, where do you get the specifics of your beliefs? I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong) that you are some form of Christian and that you belive there is a God, that he created the universe, and that he in some way (the Gospels all disagree on what Jesus was and where he came from) had something to do with a man named Jesus coming into being and getting crucified and resurrected, and that the characters are "good". Where does that information come from for you, if not the Bible?
Another question: Have you read it?

Could you tell me what Wikipedia article you are looking at and where in the article it claims this? The only thing I can find under the "Historical Jesus" article is information about trying to prove his historicity through the Gospels. Those are NOT historical documents... They don't even agree with one another and are even self-condtradictory in a lot of places. And there are blatant errors in the authors' understanding of ancient Hebrew language and traditions (that's how we ended up with the virgin birth story).