Aspergers and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

I also think the fact that we have a mostly invisible disability means that we are more unlikely to accept our God-appointed 'lot' in life because most people won't accept that we have real problems. From the point of view of religion, someone with a 'real' disability is made to suffer in order to become wise (which is a patronising view of their suffering), whereas it seems like this 'God' made us to just get kicked around a lot.

Also, I really think religion is social thing and that is what differentiates from spirituality, which is private. Hence, aspies tend to struggle with it.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 12 Apr 2011, 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That may be a disputed term too. According to [url=http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism]Wikipedia[/url] it is an ideology where people reject God but respect the teachings of Jesus. However, according to the man who wrote a book entitled The Christian Atheist it could be a word for someone who believes in God but doesn't act like it.

Except that both atheists and theists themselves can be agnostics,
and confusion on the part of the public doesn't amount to philosophical contest.

Not at all. In talking about whether there is any positive belief structure inherent to all atheists, it would NECESSITATE using the definition of atheism that INCLUDES all atheists, and that would be a lack of belief in god. Implicit, explicit, strong, weak, gnostic, agnostic, etc are, then, modifiers.

You can if denotations are not in the hands of popularity, but of relevant academia.

The odd Stickam Debate Faith discussion aside, I don't know of any atheists that are in any way organized or unified, except in sharing a non-belief. Many of them have never MET another atheist in real life, and their primary communication with any others occurs online over great distances, if at all.


The relevant fields of academia and trade should define word meaning, as they are the ones who are actually EDUCATED in the specific etymology. I see no major rift in philosophy about how to define atheism. I see millions of people misusing the word, and a few philosophers musing about how popular that misuse is.


There is if people expect to be able to have meaningful discourse with other people about their beliefs without incessantly reminding others that the labels they use actually have their own "special" made-up meaning that's completely removed from standardization of any kind.

Plenty of "vegetarians" eat fish. That doesn't mean they're not mocked, and rightfully so.
The label they give themselves is wrong because it has all the legitimacy of 8 year old girls creating a secret language with pre-existing words at a slumber party.

Words are mere symbols used to communicate concepts- this can be done efficiently if everyone has the same MIS-conceptions regarding what concept a symbol conveys, but this -forms the problem of leaving some concepts with no symbols at all-If "Atheist" is colloquially redefined to mean "Strong Atheist", how will weak atheists describe themselves? The answer to that is obvious- they will arbitrarily choose another word to describe what they are- Agnostic. But now what do Agnostics call themselves? How many definitions removed from ANY denotative meaning are we going to get before there is trouble communicating efficiently?


Is black also white, and up, down?
In terms of Vinn Diagrams, how can the cultural group of Atheism lie within Atheism, proper, and yet it's boundaries are synonymous?

Again, when discussing if there is a unifying positive belief among atheists,
it is necessary to use the broadest definition.

It's pure silliness.
An atheist who follows the moral teachings of Jesus is an atheist who follows the moral teachings of Jesus.
Without a complimentary belief in the divinity of Jesus, it's impossible to call oneself a Christian.

Someone who believes in god but doesn't act like it is likewise someone who believes in god but doesn't act like it.
A godless god believer is engaging in Dr. Seuss-echelon nonsense.

I used to think wisdom for suffering but there are a lot of cases, particularly where either you're suffering from a condition that attacks your human dignity/honor/respect or additionally if you are in a position where you're left fully mobile to suffer, have that eureka moment, and still get flushed out of the pipe anyway. You additionally have a famous quote by a holocaust survivor who said that their heart was so filled with poison that if you licked it you would die. There's a certain point where everyone has their limits, wisdom turns to anger, and back when I believed I had the prayer a few times, I've known other aspie-like people who have prayed similarly, to not go to heaven, not go to hell, but simply be erased from existence, that they simply did not want to go on as them in any way shape or form. What's to be gained from being put to a place where you're soul is either mortified or wishing to end its own existence - I really can't fathom what's gained, particularly people who's lives have no reprieve, no rest from it, and ultimately fall by it.

This conversation feels like a flashback from Domino.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZkl1QpkJ00[/youtube]

I think those folks call themselves "post-theists".

In any case, it isn't a poor labeling system, you just don't really know the complexities of these issues. I mean, if your position is that the Christian God USED TO exist, and no longer exists, then you aren't just an atheist with Christian tendencies, and you aren't just a normal Christian either as you reject God's current existence, as such, you are in a strange middle ground. The issue is that the theology described by that is Thomas Altizer's who believes that the cross was the permanent death of God. Now, one can say this is silly, or ridiculous, or whatever have you, but, it isn't a poor labeling system to call this person a Christian atheist.

A post-theist is necessarily an Atheist.
If "Christian" simply meant following the moral teachings of Jesus, it wouldn't be a poor labeling system.
Since it does, a "Christian Atheist" is quite literally a godless god-believer.

It's nothing to do with the "complexities of these issues", and everything to do with making up new words when old ones suffice perfectly.

Umm... depending on your use of the term "agnostic". You keep on assuming that only one terminological framework exists at a given time.

Even further, you haven't shown that this is merely confusion. If people use a term consistently by a definition that differs from your own, there is no justification for the claim of confusion unless you can prove that one usage is OBJECTIVELY right, and the other OBJECTIVELY wrong, and frankly, I deny that language is a realm with that kind of objectivity.


Umm..... no, you've just SHIFTED the conversation. The issue is whether a person can use the term "Atheist" to denote a subset of the group of atheists with certain characteristics. The existence of multiple possible definitions is all I need to show this point. Now, you can use all of these modifiers however you want, as you could with any linguistic thing as phrases, terminology, and all of that are prone to ad hoc construction, but you can't show that one framework is truer than another. You can argue that it is communicatively better, but not truer, and as such a person who uses another terminological framework cannot be wrong, unless there is no community of users who would back that person up.


They're not. Words are not owned by any group. You're trying to contest the point that definitions are a matter of use, and that's just silly, and leads to so much more complexity in philosophy of language that it is just absurd.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists

The American Atheists is a well-known atheist organization that has done ad campaigns across the US.

If one goes onto the website, meetup.com, one finds a large number of groups organized around atheism. In fact, there are a good number just in my area, including an atheist book club. Your point is just problematic.


They OUGHT to define word meanings? Prove it. Don't just say it, I've just been making the case that word meanings are a product of communities, a point that makes complete sense given how languages would have to emerge and develop over time. Prove your normative case. Even further, what do we do if relevant fields do not define the word in the same way? How do we set relevant fields above each other?

What does your point about "educated" have to do with anything? It isn't as if education gives one insight into the special realm of the Forms where one can see the true Form underlying each word. Nor is it as if how we use a word now *has* to relate to its etymology. Words defy their etymology all the time. Economics used to just be a term for managing household income, now it's a field about what incentives motivate prostitutes to get into the business, and about cognitive biases.

In any case, I will be up-front and say that if those philosophers(you'll have to give me some names here, as otherwise I don't know which members of the community you talk about) are speaking incorrectly.


Standardization just isn't how language has ever historically worked. Your point is thus silly. Even further, it isn't as if in most of these cases, there is only one person who has a particular usage.


.... ok? I don't really care. Even further, this term emerged in academic theology, particularly philosophical theology, which *is* one of the relevant fields for definitions of these terms. So.... if we're going by your earlier claim that "relevant experts should have the authority", and the person who coined this is a relevant expert, then.... isn't that a problem for your idea?

What makes 8 year old girls with their secret language illegitimate? I mean, if it works for them, what's the problem? What's the illegitimacy?


Bethie, prove that a misconception exists in reality, y'know, that there is an objective feature about reality involving language that something is a misconception.

In any case, with your little thought experiment, what the atheists could do, is that they could use different definitions than other people for the same words. That's what's already GOING ON. So, one group will use the words like "X, Y, and Z", the other group will use the words like "A, B, and C" and it all basically works out within that linguistic community. There are problems when overlaps occur, but so long as nobody is stupid, these can easily be resolved as someone will say when I use "word", I mean "X", or some approximation thereof. In fact, just with academic communities, given that these communities are somewhat isolated from each other, coining overlapping terms and rejecting terms and all of that already does occur, ANYWAY.

I dunno, I see your effort to promote a perfectly unified language which we are normatively compelled to use to lack a certain.... grasp of the problems of real language and that languages evolve over time and thus aren't easily kept in line by us intelligent designers. Even academics use terms in manners that other academics disaprove of.


Black *could* be white, but such an issue is unlikely as the terms are known as OPPOSITES. Similar definitions are more likely than opposing definitions.

The boundaries aren't synonymous. Isn't that just simple? Sort of like how not every conservative has to be right-wing, and not everyone on the right is actually a conservative. The term "conservative" has a lot of different definitions, whether it is conserving the old ways, reluctance to change, being on the right-wing, etc. The same with liberal, whether it is generous, left-wing, freedom-oriented, etc. These boundaries actually have BIGGER issues than the atheism one. After all, the term "liberal" actually DID displace a pre-existing ideology, libertarianism, which thus displaced another pre-existing ideology, left-libertarianism, but NOBODY seems to seriously advocate that we switch our labels back to an earlier labeling scheme, despite that other nations don't do this, and despite the greater sense it would mean to have that old system. Nor is being right-wing the same as preserving the old ways. I mean... your objection is just silly and ridiculous unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to overhaul the English language, which.... I think is well beyond the point of this discussion.


There is no necessity here. If one discusses a unifying positive belief among atheists, they could easily be meaning definition 2, rather than definition 1, or definition 3, or whatever have you. As such, your point is silly.

And Thomas Altizer was a man who believed God used to exist and then that God later died. So.... yeah.... fun stuff here.

One can hold that Jesus was divine and be an atheist. Jesus died on the cross, remember? All that one has to hold is that he didn't come back.

Even further, I actually don't believe that the divinity of Jesus is necessary for calling oneself a Christian. Arianism is a theological belief within the Christian framework. It is often considered heretical, but, how could a person no longer be a Christian by common parlance just because they rejected one doctrine? What would we call them then? What about the folks who believe there is a Christian God, but that Jesus was just a good inspiration? I mean, it is hard to just say that these folks, and there are probably a lot of them(some of the sects split off from Christianity are unitarian, as are some liberal Christians), are just outside the bounds of Christianity.

A post-theist is necessarily an atheist.... hmm..... I have my doubts. After all, some would claim to be transtheistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism

Even further, I just think your claim on Christian atheism is stupid.

Finally... you're the one who is arguing that we need to change the way our language works. There isn't "making up new words" here. These words already exist, you just don't like them. The status quo though doesn't side with you, so make your philosophical case that we have to have this unified language without complexity and where everything is intelligently designed, even that people who are not actively engaging in intelligently designing language are wrong.

To me, this entire debate is silly, stupid, and pointless, as it isn't a real contest, but rather your silly "essentialism" going against the workings of reality. Essentialism is false. There isn't an essence to words or to anything else, which is why theisms are stupid, and why that whole complaint about the difference between a dog and a fish being an insurmountable leap for evolution is moronic. I'm just being sensible in looking at this the way I am, and I am just upholding the way the world works as valid. You want to go on this crusade against all sense and reason... so.... make a real argument that we all ought to overhaul the English language, as overlapping definitions and contested definitions and all of that isn't the only sin of this language, Bethie. We accept the others, so... what's the deal?

I guess the whole deal here is that you're arguing about words that different sociological groups are ascribing different definitions to. Some of these groups are vying to have a monopoly on the meaning of a given word, you're standing in the way of such a monopoly, and hence the linguistic debate.

No, I'm not an athiest.

And by the way, don't expect accurate poll results posting this here. This particular subforum tends to attract a certain breed of aspies.

Such as?

Name me an online, voluntary, unscientific poll that doesn't have a sampling bias.