Asperger's and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

People with Asperger's (such as me) tend to lean toward logic more than emotion. Although I come from a Roman Catholic family, I became Atheist a few years ago mainly due to the fact that I questioned and balked at a lot of the Church's teachings. Much of talk of God and Heaven didn't make logical sense to me. Are we Aspergians predisposed to disbelieve and question everything because we are more logical than social or are there Asperigans out there who are religious? PLEASE RESPOND. I LOVE TO READ YOYR COMMENTS.

1 i have aspergers
2. i tend to be logical and literal
3. i believe in evolution, an old earth, an older universe
4. therefore, im not an athesist

I take a logical point of view in religion. I accept that most of the bible is open to interpretation. I also know that there is much evidence of the tales in the bible. Particularly the story of Jesus. I reject many of the more ridicules specifics of the Bible. Atheism is much too cold a thought for me.

I have a problem with religion. I'm sure it was born of good intentions but it breeds a lot of ignorance. I do however relate to spirituality as I have seen the power of prayer, in particular, synchronicity and that sort of thing.

Being logical and prone to question the status quo doesn't mean we can't be spiritual.

However, I do believe that those qualities tend to steer us away from the mainstream religions and take a more individual aproach to spiritualism.

Personally, I'm an atheist only because I don't trust in what I can't percieve. I'm open to the possibility of a force of sorts, controling or influencing the universe as a whole. But even so, the possibility of such a force making itself known to us or go so far as to instill wisdom upon us through so-called Prophets is beyond preposterous to me.

I too am logical instead of emotional. After scientific inquiry, I came come to the conclusion that the Creator exists. I also believe the Bible. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic church as well as most other churches teach things that are plainly non-Biblical. I believe that these false teachings have turned many off to the idea of a Creator. It is understandable. One blazing church contradiction to the Bible is the "Good Friday" death and Easter Sunday resurrection of the Savior. Either the churches' teachings are true in that they teach that there was only approximately 32 hours between the death and resurrection or the Bible is true in that it teaches that there is a full 72 hours (3 days and 3 nights) between the death and resurrection.

The Bible teaches that He died just before the beginning of the Sabbath (a yearly Holy day known as the beginning of the Days of Unleavens) and was ALREADY resurrected on the day AFTER the (weekly) Sabbath. He most likely dies on a Wednesday afternoon at approximately 3 pm and was arisen at about the same time Saturday. If this is the case, if fulfills all the statements stated in the Bible about the death and resurrection. The church teachings on this subject does much to cast a bad light on the only sign He gave that would prove He is the Messiah. There are many other errors taught by the churches that also cast confusion on what the Bible actually says.

Another thing that casts confusion is the lack of understanding of the Hebrew culture and idioms used during Biblical times. If these were better explained and cleared up, more people would be inclined to believe what the Bible actually says. Throwing out what the churches teach and actually doing research for one's self will greatly increase understanding. Unfortunately, most people do not devote enough time to doing so.

I liked the message from the movie Angels and Demons because of that reason - towards the end, it was almost miraculous, a second coming of the church. But then it came to light he was actually the bad guy, leading one cardinal (I think) to say that "religion is flawed because man is flawed."

Another movie, Cube Zero, doesn't confront issues of religion specifically, but it does relate to recurring themes in reality. Is 'god' worth killing or dying for? When do we take responsibility for our actions and stop saying that god or the devil 'made me do it?' Is it really worth selling your mind body and soul to any cause? Is our freedom, our ability to make our own decisions not greater than anything that we can be convinced is right? Before you pull that trigger in the name of whoever, you have to ignore the voice in your heart that tells you that killing is wrong and it is life that is most sacred. With each violent act you take, it gets easier to ignore that voice. What would you be if you couldn't hear that voice? Less than human, I would think. Would you make that sacrifice?

I'm involved with BSA and sometimes work 'with' a church. Many people that go to the church are elderly; those who seek comfort and reassurance before the end. It occurs to me that belief systems originally evolved to make the unexplained less frightening. Now, we are advancing quite rapidly, and much of what was previously terrifying and mystical is now easily explainable by science. For example, lightning. That said, there will always be unexplained things. We still haven't explained ghosts or UFOs with any definite conclusion. We don't know what happens to our consciousness when we die. We have neither proven nor disproved the existence of God. Though it is entirely possible that there is a 'god' out there, somewhere in the universe, I'm hardly about to get down and worship it.

Spirituality, faith, and religion are separate but related elements. I have little faith in anything other than scientific reasoning. Spirituality? I am in awe of the beauty, power and elegance of the nature of our universe. Religion? I prefer free will. I am nobody's subordinate.

Hmm... I can both see this and not see this with Catholicism.

The reason I can see an aspie rejecting Catholicism is that the church has dogmas that cannot be questioned but that do not seem to make sense, and that Catholicism is traditionalist in pointless seeming ways. However, at the same time, I can see an aspie possibly getting somewhat fascinated with the Thomist tradition if they went that far into Catholic teachings.


In any case, I would guess that people with AS are more likely to be atheists, but partially because this is increasingly an answer that people can comprehend and because faith communities are not likely to provide us with fulfilling answers.

As a passionate person with AS, I would say I am spiritual but not necessarily religious. I do not follow scripture nor take it literally. Christianity alone has over twenty different sects competing for what is the true interpretation. I look more into the morals that they have in common than the prophets.

Sadly, religion is the most misused and misunderstood tool in history. Science comes at a close second even though it is a somewhat recent creation in all of human history.

I have Asperger's, but I'm sadly entirely devoid of logic. Anyway..

I define myself as a christian, although I doubt any form of church would do so. I reject the Old Testament as stupid (I mean, come on. An almighty god who actually fears his creations? Or is angry at them? And seriously, what's the deal with the jew-favouritism?) and I tend to view parts of the New Testament as lies written by people centuries after Jesus (Seriously, Jesus being born during the winter? No way there's shepherds sleeping outside in the middle of the night in Palestine during the winter. And no, the romans didn't make the jews return to their ancestor's home.) Also, I view prayers as meaningless. One of the reasons for that is that if God is all knowing and all powerful, then he doesn't need to hear me tell him how much I believe in him. He would already know.

I don't believe in any god, actually I try not to "believe" anything at all. So I'm probably not even an atheist. But I also try not to think I "know" something as well.
Some things seem so obvious and logical to me that I act as if I knew them but actually I only think them to be highly probable. Some things I have experienced, but I don't know if the "I" in the past is the same "I" I seem to experience right now... This is the closest to "belief" I come.

I could say I don't believe in knowing, and I really don't know about believing at all

I think I don't believe in any god, actually I think I try not to "believe" anything at all. So I think I'm probably not even an atheist. But I think I also try not to think I "know" something as well.
Some things seemingly seem so obvious and logical to me that I think I act as if I knew them but actually I probably only think them to be highly probable. Some things I may have experienced, but I seem not to know if the "I" in the past is the same "I" I seem to experience right now... This - I guess - is the closest to "belief" I seem to come.

I maybe could say I don't believe in knowing, and I really don't know about believing at all

phewww! OK I GIVE UP! I BELIEVE TO THINK WHAT I AM THINKING, at least! And I BELIEVE to experience what I call ME and I just f*ing assume you know what I mean....

I don't believe in religion myself because I don't think it makes sense.

Religion: we have books written thousands of years ago, which for all we know could be old sci-fi, and we try to learn from it even though everything contradicts itself. In the case of the Bible, it talks about someone coming back from the dead after three days, even though this has never happened since and there is no proof it's even possible... Yet lots that it's completely impossible.

Science: we think this happened because we have evidence from space, studies, satellites, sound recordings from the big bang, fossils, etc, so in conclusion the following things are possibilities...

Which of those is more logical to you?

(no offense to any religious people BTW, that's just my view)

The Gospels are sole sorce for the existence of Jebus = God Jr. The evidence is less than robust. There is little collateral evidence of Jebus from that time. In any case even if such a man existed the idea that God is his biological daddy is nonsense. Human Virgins do not bear live male sons.

ruveyn

Since you are a stickler for literalism, you should be informed that it is entirely possible to get pregnant without penetration.

It is also technically possible retain a hymen after penetration, though I dont envy the guy. That being said its also possible to lose ones hymen through other sexual practices. Or even through mundane activities such as jogging.

Though the catholic idea of special women retaining their hymen after giving birth seems pretty ridiculous, apparently some old men believe a hymen can strangle a baby? "Human Virgins do not bear live male sons"?

Maybe female daughters (readers, the need for a double gender qualifier is something you will have to ask ruveyn), are smaller and can slip past the deadly hymen? And non human mammals of course, do not exhibit this deadly tissue.

But more likely you are just appallingly naive about the variegated sexual practices of young people, none of which were invented last year.

I know I am going to be watching closely for the signs of female sons and male daughters from now on... and rampant literalism at WP.

Barely possible and highly unlikely, especially back in those bad old days. If a Roman Centurion had his way with poor Miriam he would have busted more than her hymen.

I think it is highly likely that the biological father of Jebus was a human male.

ruveyn