Autism and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

You really aren't very good at this. Your statement is a variant of: "atheism is a lack of beliefs regarding god". But rather than address the intrinsic meaning of this statement, you tangentially invoke your need for reasons and then toss in the 'pink unicorn' attempt at reducto absurdum.

The statement "atheism is a lack of beliefs regarding god" is the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and going LA LA LA I'm not listening,.

It is impossible to have no beliefs regarding god once the concept has been invoked. Once the idea is in your head, you cannot escape applying some meaning to it. You MUST believe something about god even if what you believe is that the very concept of god is so fatally flawed that it is not worth discussion.

It is indeed sophistry, because it attempts to obfuscates the obvious - that beliefs about god exist in all atheists.

soph·is·try (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

And you're beginning to become condescending. Please, insults have no part in a rational discussion.



You need to define what you mean by "god" before I can form an opinion on the subject. Prior to your defining god, I really can't form an opinion on something that has yet to be defined. Once you define it, there's really nothing logically preventing me from stating, "There's no current evidence available that would convince me to believe in that god."

Prior to your defining your god, there's nothing logically preventing me from saying, "I have no beliefs regarding your undefined god:" hence I have no beliefs. I have no more "beliefs" regarding your undefined god than I do in the invisible unicorn in my closet, unless I am also required to have a "belief" regarding that subject as well?

Lastly, "god" is such an immensely broad concept that I can't possibly be expected to know every definition of "god" as described by any human wishing to attempt to define the subject. It is also quite possible that there are definitions of gods that have yet to be described by any human at all, or that are completely beyond human comprehension to be able to define in the first place. In regards to the myriad of these as yet undefined gods, I simply must confess to having no beliefs either way.



I don't believe in psychics either.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 09 Jan 2011, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Autistics, or Aspies anyway, tend to be focused on particulars and details. There is not detailed or particular evidence that gods, spirits, ghosts and other worldly powers exist. There is no good reason for believing any of these unseen things are real. Hence the tendency toward atheism or agnosticism.

ruveyn

No. I don't. By providing you a definition, you would be able to tell be your opinion on MY beliefs. This does not address the sophistry of the statement.



This is not the same statement. Winning arguments by changing them is the same as losing the argument.

And anyway, this statement is actually true. Since I have not provided any of my definitions regarding god, you cannot yet have any beliefs regarding those definitions. But there are plenty of definitions of god out there, many of which you are already aware. So, whether you admit it or not, you DO have beliefs about THOSE definitions, hence the falsehood of stating

"atheism is a lack of beliefs regarding god". You are an atheist. You have beliefs about god.




"Don't believe" is not equivalent to "have no beliefs"

"I don't believe in psychics" is terribly imprecise. Psychics actually exist. There is a psychic fair every year near here. A more accurate statement would "I don't believe psychics have any real powers" or something like that.

Whether or not I am "aware" of various definitions of any god is still besides the point of whether I can be said to have "beliefs" about said gods. I can look at the definition about God Y and determine whether or not I feel sufficient evidence exists for whatever claim is being made about God Y, but God Y can exist and operate independently of whether I, or anyone else, thinks there is evidence to support any particular aspect of God Y. Can I said to have an opinion on the nature of the evidence concerning God Y? Yes. Can I have an opinion on the arguments used by the believers in God Y to attempt to demonstrate his existence? Yes. Does it mean I must have "beliefs" regarding the ultimate existence of God Y? Nope. My "beliefs" concern things like man-made evidence, argumentation, and philosophy, not necessarily about the ultimate existence or true nature of God Y.

IMHO, the above is quite consistent in keeping with a "lack of belief in any gods." If you're of a mind that any opinion on anything even remotely connected to a god constitutes "beliefs" about a god, then that's your personal definition and I can do nought to alter it. Of course, "lack of belief regarding gods" isn't the same as saying "utter absence of opinion regarding anything even remotely having to do with any god." Like all things in life, it's how you choose to interpret it.

Unfortunately, I must be off to the gym now (I'm not ignoring you or anything). Jolly fun discussion, though! Thank you for making me use my brain, and have a good night/day/whatever,

American atheists are rebelling against Judeo-Christian theism which gets them stuck in a black/white thinking pattern. There could be other possibilities.
I watched a show on aliens last night and how they might have visited this planet several times, maybe even providing the HAR in the genome.
Aliens could be a euphemism for gods.

Which is my point. They emotionalism displayed by militant atheists is the antithesis of the rationalism the attempt to use in their arguments.

Instead of disputing the Bible and the rites and sacraments of the RCC, I would like to hear their thoughts on fully evolved species...if full evolution is indeed possible.

I lean towards there being a God normally, as I was raised Muslim.
Now I don't know how many other people on here feel this way, but when I feel more angry and frustrated regarding the difficulties of life as an Aspie, I go on rants about region being illogical and science proves there's no god. But I really do that because I am angry at God for making me an Aspie. "I did not turn my back on God; God turned his back on me!"

That reminds me of something I don't really like about religion - if things go well it's because God answered prayer, and I imagine if things go wrong people may think they have offended God or something. I think it's healthier to just accept that things are as they are, and not get so wrapped up in "oh woe is me" and blaming God or yourself.

I think that's the question of suffering or pain and of God also being good.

The theodicy question.

And then there are religions where that is actually the goal (to accept things as they are, in a very complete way).

anbuend~

Yep.

Yep. When anything good happens, its all God. When horrible things happen, that's all our own doing and God had nothing to do with any of it. Its a double standard.

Is there any particular reason you need to paint atheists with such a broad brush? I don't particularly care for generalizations.

All of my American atheists friends came to their non-beliefs through study and reason, not a desire to "rebel." Of course, there are atheists that fit that description, but it certainly hasn't been my experience.

And I'm still not sure how not believing in a god due to lack of evidence demonstrates either "black/white thinking" or "emotionality.

As stated before, "non-beliefs" is not a valid construct. It is not possible to discuss a concept such as god and have no beliefs, even if what you believe regarding the concept is that it is not a concept worth considering. In insisting that "non-belief" is your stance you demonstrate your irrational attachment to rejecting concepts of god out of hand, without reason. Atheists that insist on saying they have no beliefs regarding god are attempting to null the concept, in the same sense that a value in computer program is uninitialized. But it is not a null concept as soon as ANY form is given it, whether you accepts those forms or not because these form initialize the concept, forever eliminating the null state.