Are most people with Asperger's Atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

I can identify with it, but I wouldn't say that "the entire concept of God as we know it/Him" is ridiculous. Simply because I've learned to accept it. I used to think it's ridiculous though in my teens and twenties.

Thank you for bringing to my attention Pagan-Atheism, I can relate to it. I googled THIS, I find it familiar, definitely makes sense to me.

I don't always do that, I find sometimes it's an easier way to express myself using this concept. I just add "if exists", if appropriate. Maybe it's only cultural.

I accept. One can not be totally sure. But, I'm used to saying that science is the best way to actually describe things as they really are. It doesn't mean a human being in restricted only to science to cope with life.

Exactly. I must emphasize that the concept of "God" might be different for each individual.

No it does'nt it shows that this particular person thinks rationally, questioning and investigating the beliefs others have tried try to install in them. If your assertion was correct then ASD should be over represented in fundies.

From my understanding the internet is over represented with atheist's , why? I dont know, but this could well account for the perception that AS folk have a tenancy toward atheism. From memory the polls conducted in PPR come out pretty even. There are a scary amount in PPR who actually believe in the biblical account for creation

I guess I'm technically an agnostic, but choose to think as an atheist. I didn't become an atheist until my personal circumstances went into crisis and I hit rock bottom a few years ago, when I had to confront my own future. I rejected the idea of religion not just out of lack of evidence, as I had even held on to faith after hearing of evolution and even theories on the origins of life, but only after having heard of what a human-designed sham religion is, and how it has been unhelpful and oppressive.

I'm a proud Christian.

That alone makes you an atheist, whether you like the word or not. Atheism itself doesn't imply anything more or less than just that - lack of belief in gods. The assertion that there is no god is called "strong atheism", "positive atheism" or "gnostic atheism", in contrast to weak/agnostic atheism, which is your position (lacking a belief, and making no assertion one way or the other as to whether or not there is a god). You don't have to believe anything or make any kind of positive assertment in order to be an atheist; it's the default position. Any person who is not a theist is an atheist. That's what atheist means: "Not theist".
It can be compared to for example how a servo motor is either "turning" or "not turning". There's no third alternative. Even if it's turning very slow, it's still turning. And if it's not turning, it doesn't matter why - it can be switched off, it can be disconnected from the battery, it can be hindered, it can be faulty, it can be smashed into tiny little pieces, it's still in the category of "not turning". You'll never get a servo motor to not be in one of those positions. It's a binary question, "is the servo motor turning?". As is the question "Do you believe that at least one god exists?", provided the word "god" has been agreed upon to enough of an extent for the question to even mean anything. Whether there is a god or not is a completely different question, as is the question of how certain you are. Atheism answers only the question "Do you believe that at least one god exists?". If your answer is "yes", you're a theist. If your answer is anything but "yes", you're not a theist, and if you're not a theist, that's called an atheist. Further questions may lead to more detailed descriptions of your philosophy, but atheism isn't a belief, it's simply the state of not being a theist.

Precisely. We cannot answer all that our curiosity seeks by science alone. Science, reductionism, logic and rational thought are powerful things, but their power is not all encompassing. Of course this is a statement of belief as there is no proof one way or the other, as of yet.

How is it anything but literal?

Religious people don't believe that God magically snaps his fingers and BAM! Baby League_Girl. They generally believe that everything that happens is a result of God planning it (though a lot of religious people seem to think that anything they don't like, such as abortion or assisted suicide, somehow goes against God's plan).

Everything we do is either to do with things we experience within (hormone changes or genetics, for example) or to do with things we experience externally (from the social norms of our culture to physical pain), or both.

For example, your mum didn't just decide she was too old to have kids, she would have had reasons why she thought she was too old. Some of those reasons were probably social norms, or related to hormone releases, or whatever. Other people might decide not to have kids because it would impact on their career, or because they can't afford to feed another mouth, or because it's hard enough to look after the number they have already, or they morally object to having children.

More rational theists believe that all the factors that affect our decision making were put in place by God when the universe began. Many philosphers hold similar beliefs about free will not genuinely existing, they just don't necessarily factor God into it.

I do not believe in God, but I am not an atheist. So, my answer to that poll is literally correct but potentially misleading because it may be interpreted that I am atheist, rather than "not a Christian."

Which god(s) do you believe in, out of interest?

I'm agnostic, but I'm partial to heroic mythology. Earlier in the thread I said "Pagan-leaning agnostic."

How can you not be an atheist and not believe in god?

Not believing in god is being an atheist.

I thought Verdandi might have meant that she believed in some other god(s) (just not God). For example, Hindus believe in Krishna/Vishnu/Rama etc., then there's the Greek/Roman/Egpytian/Norse/Celtic gods.

Verdandi- atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods, not a lack of a religion. Theism is a belief in a god. Buddhists, for example, are atheists.

So there's only one possible god to believe in or you're atheist? Pagans have a wide assortment of gods adopted from multiple cultures. As The_Walrus pointed out, there's also Hinduism.



I am not sure what you're trying to say. I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. I don't particularly have a religion, but I lean toward certain kinds of modern paganism.

I never tried to claim that atheism was a lack of a religion rather than disbelief in gods.

My stated position was I believe that God is All, so you can't say that I am an atheist of any kind. As a human being I understand I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong, but that doesn't stop me from having a belief in god. Beliefs and faith do not require evidence. Neither does a lack of belief.

The English language is not black and white. Words have more than one meaning. A person could be agnostic and atheist depending on their acceptable definition of agnostic.

The Merriam Webster dictionary is a reliable source for more than one meaning of Agnostic. If a person tells you they neither lack a disbelief in God or or have a belief in God, it fits a standard definition of Agnostic and excludes your acceptable definition of Atheism as a lack of belief in God(s). No need to argue philosophy, it is simply syntax and semantics.

If a person will not commit to an opinion you have no way of knowing whether or not they believe in God, this also fits a standard meaning of Agnostic and can exclude your acceptable definition of Atheist.

I respect your right to believe or hold an opinion that there is no middle category, only theists and atheists, there are some that hold that opinion, but the dictionary, a common reference of the english language provides evidence that there is an accepted third category of agnostic that excludes your definition of atheist. I understand it is not acceptable to you, but it is commonly accepted in our culture.

Lacking a belief in a god is the correct description of my position. I'm not concerned with what is and is not acceptable among some atheists.



Having one belief does not necessitate holding yet another belief on nothing but the basis that they're both "beliefs.."



Some beliefs are supported by evidence. Some are not. The extent to which you care about evidence will determine which beliefs you incorporate into your worldview.

I believe the sun will come up tomorrow because it's come up every single day since the day I've been born; therefore, it is reasonable for me to believe that the sun will rise yet again. I have no reason to believe in unicorns; therefore, I don't. Other people may have a reason to believe in unicorns (personal encounters, ect), but I do not.



Science is the best method we currently have for determining the nature of what we perceive to be physical reality as determined by our human senses. It's entirely possible for things to exist that science cannot detect, but if I have no reason to believe in them, either personally or empirically, then I'm not going to.

I was not suggesting what things if any one should believe in, only that at the heart of our perceptions and thinking lies belief. There is no absolute proof for anything. This realization is a two edged sword. On one hand, since "we can't PROVE anything", some will invent systems of thought that have little correlation to what can be scientifically shown. On the other hand, obsessive adherence to what we can "scientifically prove" limits ones imagination. Sometimes you have to just observe and take things in without analyzing. Thinking weird thoughts can lead to new discoveries that can be investigated scientifically.



I'm more of the belief that science is really good at some things but hardly any use in others. Some important parts of living are experiential, not rational. An orgasm can be physiologically and neurologically explained, but learning about an orgasm just isn't the same as having one. And in practice, during an orgasm, rational thought recedes and you become immersed in the moment. Much of human experience is non-rational. My rational mind leads me to believe that there are important parts of this experience that in principal cannot be explained rationally.