Religion (or lack thereof) and Autism/Asperger's?

Post Reply New Topic

I answered the second one, but you have to realize that I came to my Christian faith because it seemed like the most likely explanation for things that happened. I later found further evidence to support my belief. I have no logical proof that it must be true, but it is difficult to explain certain things otherwise, without being forced that either I'm crazy or there's magic. I believe this because I have about as much proof for it as I'll accept for other things. I have more evidence for my faith than I do that the sun is a giant ball of gas very far away. If I accept the one, for which I have as evidence only the fact that I've been given an explanation that sounds plausible, then I don't think I can be criticized for accepting the other, for which I have evidence from my own senses.

Also, I don't always have transportation. When I had regular transportation, I was the first one.

I selected Agnostic.. That's the closest answer to what i am. I'm certainly NOT religious, and i don't believe in the Judeo-Christian idea of God, that's for sure(so, to a christian maybe i am an "athiest"). But i don't deny that there could be any kind of "god." In some ways i kind of like the idea of Pantheism(god being, basically, everything). Mainly, i just accept SCIENCE. I believe that there could possibly be more going on in existance than what we're currently able to identify and measure, though.. Possibly even something that could in some way be called "god." But, i don't believe things that go against science and logic(creationism without evolution, for example).. I just think that there are many possibilities in the gaps of what we know about existance, and, of those possibilities, there could be room for some sort of "god"(depending on how broad your definition of "god" is).

I selected atheist, however I am a post theist. I believe that life has progressed past the age where the need for a mystical belief in religion and associated philosophical ideas existed-- to me the idea of afterlife, permanent soul, soul parent, etc are all obsolete. this has been one of my special interests for years, on my path of exit from the religion I felt I was brainwashed into in childhood.

I'm an atheist.

I'm somewhat religiously confused I guess. Science and religion don't usually tend to mix well, but they also don't seem to contradict each other as much as most claim they do. For example, in the bible it says god created everything in a week, wheras science says the same process took trillions of years and envolved processes such asthe big bangand evolution. Its not an exact contradiction since in the very beginning of the bible, the sun and earth don't exist therefor a 24 hour day doesn't exist, so to define a day you have to look at the pointof view of the only being present (god). So how long is a day in the eyes of an all poerful being? At what point did god begin creating things (post or pre big bang?) and what methods did he use to create everything? How do we not know that evolution wasn't his way of molding us into the beings he wanted us to be? Neither science nor religion really can answer those types of questions. I guess my thing is, I dont see how you can say something on that big a scale is absolute with little to no proof to back it up. Theories can change. Everyone seems to closed minded while talking about the origin of existance. Religious nuts would like to tell you that even against all of the evidince to back it up, that things like evolution never happened. At the same time I've had plenty of spiritual experiences that science nuts would claim either impossible or say it was something else. All I really know is I'm a human living on planet earth with no idea how all of everything actually came into being.

Edit: I guess that technically makes me agnostic.

Last edited by Neon304 on 05 Jul 2010, 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

If the Bible is the ultimate history book, then I'm very concerned considering that they can't even get facts about Jesus right.

The Bible says that Herod was in power when Jesus was conceived but Herod died in 4BC and the census that would have caused Mary to have to travel to Bethlehem didn't occur until 6AD. Following the timeline in the Bible Mary would have pregnant with Jesus for over 10 years.

Then the Bible talks about Herod ordering the killing of all first born sons in Bethlehem, but nowhere else is this massacre recorded. Surely, someone, somewhere would have written about an infanticide of this size happening.

Also Joseph is said to be from Nazaerth, but there was no town called Nazaerth during Jesus' supposed life time. A Nazarite means one that is consecrated and has nothing to do with a geographical location.

Also the writers of the Gospel - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never met Jesus. At the time that the Gospels were written Jesus had been dead 40 - 70 years. Given that the average lifespan was about 30 -50 years, they could have never met the man. Also note there wildly different stories about Jesus' birth and life. If they met the man surely they would all be telling the same story.

If the Bible can't even get the story about their man-god right, the one vital foundation of their faith, what else have they gotten wrong?

Atheist here.

Atheist.

It's quite obvious religion was created as a tool for explaining what humans did not understand back then. It also constructed social rules.

You know, the last couple of years I've been really starting to dislike the way atheists are going off. Like they've completely missed the point and want to just stand around feeling superior and get the occasional pointed barb in--haha, look at those religious troglodytes. Seems like if they really wanted people to give up on Creationism and other anti-science sects, they'd push for teaching critical thinking skills in schools and let everybody figure it out themselves.

Besides, there are progressive churches out there that are very important for certain communities and they don't have any problem with science or evolution or any of that. It's none of my business what people do on their Sundays as long as it's between consensual adults. If they think they need god, who are we to argue with them?

Religion is illogical. I am an atheist.

*waits for iamnotaparakeet to have a go at me*

I am a Catholic that also believes in the Big Bang, Evolution (Humans from Primates) and science. Importantly, though, I believe in "intelligent design"; that God designed DNA, gave it a spiritual/"soul" factor and seeded the Universe with unlimited variations based on the original pattern(s).

It is possible to marry empirical data with faith.

I am Agnostic because god is unverifiable one way or the other. I can't state that I know, with no doubts, the truth, and I refuse to do so. That would be dishonest. Neither religion nor science can offer any undeniable proof and that is what would be required for me to go to either extreme of being either religious or Atheist. That being said, it is easier for me to lean toward the science.

You're really making some sweeping and unfounded generalizations about atheists here.

Seems like you've been watching too much Fox news or something.

Furthermore, what do you expect our educational system to do?

Waste time in science classes teaching students about things which simply don't qualify as SCIENTIFIC theories?


I sincerely hope that's not what you're calling for here. I'm all for teaching critical thinking skills, but sorry, astrology has no place in astronomy courses and intelligent design equally has no place in biology courses.

This is not because science has overtly claimed astrology/intelligent design as untrue. Rather, it is precisely because science is limited to what we CAN observe about the natural world.

"In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

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


Last time I checked....the human species currently has no objective means to observe an intelligent designer of anykind.

Have we been able to observe the redshifts of an intelligent designer or something?

Can we determine the elemental composition of spirit via a mass spectrometer?

Creationism/intelligent design belongs in philosophy courses or comparative religion ones.

What's the point of introducing intelligent design into science courses when science is in no way equipped to say anything about the subject at all?




In the humanities, you're dealing with subjects in which IDEAS are at least as important as empirical data. This is obviously not the case with science.


I couldn't care less if anyone feels the need for god.



The vast majority of atheists i'm aware of (and plenty of religious people too) have merely called for secularism in public life.




Secularism and atheism are not synonymous ofcourse. Secularism is simply religious neutrality.

Therefore.....I would not support the erection of a Fredrich Nietzcshe statue at the county courthouse with the words "God is Dead" inscribed on it's pedestal.

No more or less than I would support the placement of a ten commandments monument or a Muslim star/crescent on the grounds of the county courthouse.

Brennan wrote

I've always been amused by god's supposed statements in Genesis 6:7

"And god said, I will blot out from the face of the earth all mankind that
I created. Yes, and the animals too, and the reptiles and the birds. For I
am I sorry I made them".


The bolded statement is somewhat inconsistent with an OMNISCIENT god is it not?

How can such a being be "sorry" or express regret for anything?


Seems to me that the author/s of Genesis really didn't notice this when they created god in their own image.

But I guess we're not supposed to interpret that statement literally eh?


Only the omniscient Judeo-Christian humans get to tell us what statements in the bible are to be taken literally or not.

It's somewhat odd that a general consensus among the omniscient Judeo-Christian denominations and individuals is lacking here.....and elsewhere :roll


The "infallible" popes assured us for centuries that unbaptized infants who die go to "limbo".

Only to change their infallible minds about this in the 21st century.


I'll truly never understand how people far more intelligent than myself can take religion seriously.

I answered already about why I chose the answer I did. But, after reading replies, I've something to add.

I'm spiritual, and I'm religious because of that. It's not about belief. I answered the 2nd answer, but I could also call myself an agnostic. I don't believe in a traditional view of God, God as a entity with a mind, and sometimes I doubt God altogether. But I know spirituality, the effect that it has had in my life is very real, and it's been a very good thing in my life. And religion is a guide to spirituality.

I'm religious not because of belief, but because of spirituality.

I voted the fourth option.

A problem in your poll is that there is a difference between "religion" and "spirituality."

I am a Christian...born again. I have had "issues" with "religion" (as a former Roman Catholic). Churches focus on rules and rituals which may or may not be soundly based in scripture. In any institution, there is politics that goes on. This is why I don't go to church services as regularly as I probably should.

However, the Christian faith is about developing a RELATIONSHIP with God through Jesus. It's not about following a list of rules. It's about growing closer to God. I've had enough experiences that I believe God is real and that my faith is not a fool's errand. However, I still have issues with many "religions."

This disparity between real faith and following the motions of some formalized religion (and I firmly believe most of the worlds religions are used as a tool for mass control of the population), is a valid reason for most people to be inclined to reject the concepts of religion and choose to be atheist/agnostic.

Just my 2 cents.