Aspergers and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

No studies but correlation might do it, among low functioning autistics, in this case, I could ask, are they more likely to be atheists?

Atheism is not the same thing as skepticism or rational thinking. Sure, they do overlap most of the time, but that's not what I am talking about.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or a group of deities. It is not thinking logically, relying only in logic or expecting evidence before accepting something as fact. You could be an atheist and believe in unicorns, and in fact I think there are some religions without deities that do believe in supernatural phenomena or UFOs for that matter.

I guess you could call a computer an atheist. But not because it deals only with logic but because it does not believe in any god. But for that matter, a rock is an atheist as well.

In order to be a skeptic you will have to be an atheist, seeing how there really is not any evidence about gods. But in order to be an atheist you do not have to be a skeptic.

Vex, there is a group of people who call themselves atheists, who promote atheism, and who promote atheism through the association of it with reason, science, and naturalism. In common parlance, we know these people as atheists. They promote a position, calling it atheism, which entails more than just the non-existence of God. In common parlance we know of atheism as a position entailing the non-existence of God, as well as additional factors. There are books celebrating atheism on the basis of these values. Public intellectuals who are so because they promote atheism and promote it through the association of it with these values. Etc. From all of this, it is clear that the label "atheism" has a socio-cultural dimension to it.

Now, you can spout out the dictionary all you want at me, but it's completely irrelevant to the point I've made on the situation. Even further, your point about computers and rocks... is probably also pointless as well as I would imagine that all definitions of atheist, whether implicitly or explicitly, assume that the atheist has belief-forming mechanisms.

In any case, are you going to deny that there exist organizations centered around a community who is identified as atheist both by internal and external groups, and whose value system is more than just the denial of God? If you do deny that, then you are crazy. If you do not deny that, then all of this BS where you try to contest me is just you wasting your time and my time.

Yeah I think the biggest correlation between AS and atheism is that we tend to be into less mainstream things.

Well you could just be introverted. AS strikes me as extreme introversion for the most part. Introverts tend to be more sensitive to stimuli, more prone to over-stimulation than extroverts, etc... etc...

Exactly. People like to attach all these strings to atheism. Evolution is a common one, but funny thing is people tend to think evolutionary theory is synonymous with social darwinism and ironically I interpret evolutionary theory as having evidence that altruism is intrinsic to human beings and all social beings to an extent.

I find that comment insulting. I have a high IQ, I have aspie traits (the jury is out on the dx), I don't believe in any god or gods, and I have no interest in attempting to make people think anything about my intelligence. I am an atheist because I think religion is fiction, period.

Exactly.

I'm an Atheist because I was born that way and nobody ever indoctrinated me into any religion. But I sometimes feel the term Apatheist might be a better term for me, as I am rather indifferent to whatever people believe so long as it isn't harming me

I think that sums up the observation that a lot of Aspergians are Atheists in a nutshell.

Some further thoughts: I also happen to think that emotions can cause a person to make illogical decisions, but they are nearly impossible to ignore/suppress, believe me I have tried.

I believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses were doing business with extra-terrestrial beings who are just as natural as you or I. Since the early founders of monotheism were Bronze Age dudes who did not even know atoms existed it is perfectly understandable that they thought the extra-terrestrials were magic and supernatural. That is the position that Arthur C. Clark took.

ruveyn

Yes. In reality however, they are not only misusing the term they are also speaking in the name of people that don't necessarily agree with them. It is a minor issue, but still relevant when you are an atheist that doesn't want to be connected with these guys and what they claim you are supposed to believe if you are an atheist. They should get a more accurate label, and in fact most of them actually do, they use "humanist" to identify themselves inside their group. They just use atheist loudly because it is for some stupid reason a taboo and it brings attention to them.

It is not just the dictionary that disagrees with you. It is reality. AceOfSpades up there does not believe in god or gods, but he probably disagrees with you and the groups you mentioned that identify themselves as atheists in everything else. These atheists that don't really otherwise belong to the groups you mentioned are everywhere.

Or what about Raëlism and other atheist religions, they do not believe in deities but they are pretty, very crazy.


It wasn't meant to address what you said but what some guy was saying about computers being logical-based and therefore they would be atheists.

No. But I am going to say it is wrong and silly to assume that , just because these groups misuse the word atheist when they should be using the word skeptic, I am supposed to use it. For example:

You are an atheist because you don't believe in God. Yet your emotional response to this tells me you are not exactly basing your life values on rationalism.

Vex, if language is given definition by use, and this use is common, then it can't be misuse. Language doesn't have the strict normative feature where it must always go into what Webster's dictionary says.

In any case, "humanist" is also an inaccurate label. Religious humanism exists. Not all atheists would call themselves humanists, while still being part of that community, as humanism has a lot of connotations associated with the left, as well as other value systems that are not necessarily shared. Skeptics may be better, but even then that's a misuse of terminology as much as atheism would be.


OK???? Vex, your comment is stupid. I said the word has more than one definition, let's say that cultural atheists are Atheists, and non-belief/anti-belief atheists are atheists. Every Atheist is an atheist, but not all atheists are Atheists. Does that settle the issue? Does that dispel confusion? If not, please tell me where your error is, because your entire point is just flat wrong.


They aren't part of the atheist movement. Are you *really* this good at missing the point???


Vex, I said this because your position is wrong and stupid. My response isn't emotional, you've just continually failed to get a very obvious and basic point, which makes me wonder whether you have to be educated on the workings and usage of language.

1) Words can have multiple definitions.
2) Definitions are set by usage.
3) Atheism is a word.
4) Atheism can have multiple definitions (1 and 3)
5) Atheism is used to have different meanings in different contexts.
6) Atheism has multiple definitions. (2 and 5)

You're spending your entire time here contesting point 6, when point 6 logically follows from points 1, 2, 3, and 5, and those points follow from reality. Vex, you're wrong. There is nothing more for me to say. I was simply trying to say "Vex, 5 is true, and either you accept it or you don't" For you to say that this is "an emotional response" simply shows your failing.

There is no one unifying positive belief, practice, or membership of an organization that can be said to be an inherent part of atheism.
Period.

If you'd like to pick and choose philosophical definitions differentiating strong vs. weak atheism, etc, that's fine-
but the broadest definition describes a person who simply lacks belief in a deity,
and it's this definition that describes most atheists I've met.

+1.

Another thought, a bit less humor and more earnest, as to why people with AS are more often atheists - we're being punished for a sin that's not a moral one, not an ethical one, but rather its that we're being told in so many ways that we're failures as animals. We aren't able to browbeat that well as kids, we aren't good at social darwinism, we aren't good at being merciless with others, we're effectively being punished for things that aren't an issue if you look at the world from a Christian perspective but are in fact an issue if you look at it from the standpoint that everything about us and what we do is rooted in evolutionary psychology, that we are animals being animals. That look at things is obviously out of like with YEC beliefs but more importantly, when one looks at evil as being fallout of the very same forces that brought us to where we are - ie. culling the weak genes, and how we're bearing the brunt of being the weak genes, its not a scenario that makes sense or settles with a Christian outlook in any which way.

Just like that, when you do have NT's who's praises and persecutions in life have been in line with morals and that framework of reward and punishment fits neatly in biblical teachings - its much easier for them to be theists just because, the natural order of things, for them and how life treats them, makes sense.

The issue is whether cdfox7 was incorrect to use the terminology he did, not whether he used the definition that you would favor the most. So, if you want to say "There is no one unifying positive belief, practice, or membership of an organization that can be said to be an inherent part of atheism" with the presumption that atheism is only something like the lack of belief in god(s), or the positive disbelief in god(s), then that's one thing.

However, to say that a person is misusing a word when they select a common word used to identify a particular cultural group, and this cultural group has certain basic unifying beliefs is actually somewhat problematic. People can hate this as much as they want, but in Anglo-Saxon nations there is an atheist movement, with atheist identifying logos such as the atheist "A" logo that many people put up for a week to identify themselves as atheists, with atheist intellectual figures such as Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, etc, atheist literature, atheist comedy, etc, etc, etc. This isn't normative. This isn't to say that every atheist must be a member of that movement. This certainly isn't to say that atheism has no other definition. However, to say that this group is not identified as the "Atheists" both internally and externally is somewhat ridiculous.

Yes theres the British Humanist Association over there that advocates for Atheism.