Are most people with Asperger's Atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

It seems possible for all of the things I am aware of to have come about without the help of a centralized creator being, and it seems likely that all of the things I am not aware of but am currently capable of conceiving of to have come about without the help of a centralized creator.

If the creation of consciousness only comes from the actions of a consciousness, where did the previous consciousness come from? The idea of a "God" seems to only add an extra step, more complexity to the question, and I don't know of any evidence for the existence of such a being.

I don't have a good enough understanding of why life exists or why my consciousness exists to make any affirmative claim about them, but I seem to detect consciousness in the humans and the animals around me, and because consciousness seems so common, at least from what we can detect close to us, it seems not just possible but likely that the existence of consciousness at least in some form isn't limited to only being part of these corporeal and temporary things. It's possible that the consciousness is some kind of physical thing or physical property.

The possibility of consciousness being either something separate from the body or as a part of it that just doesn't necessarily exist only as part of it makes me wonder whether my own consciousness will continue to exist as I currently understand it to after my death, or whether possibly after death my own consciousness would mix with other consciousness or become part of some greater consciousness.

What;s important is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

This assumes there is "a center". An all encompassing consciousness could as easily be distributed.



This assumes that human perceptions of time apply across the totality of existence. This is not likely IMHO, and it is my understanding that current theoretical physics suggests that there is no reason to believe this is the case.

I am not suggesting that this is proof of anything, only that the very concept of "a first consciousness" is imbedded in our perception of time and that "first" has no meaning outside of that.

I think my wording may have been too confusing, but I was trying to say something like what you said in your post.

In your second quotation of me, I was arguing that the Christian argument, that everything must have come from "God" because everything must have a cause is incorrect, because it brings up the question of what caused "God".

I don't see the need for a belief in God; it seems unnecessary.

Why are some of you Atheists? What made you decide to become an Atheist?

Nobody decides to believe what they believe.

I don't know about aspies being more atheist then NT's, but maybe it can be. I suppose people who use more logic would more easily come to an atheist "conclusion"? I am interested in buddhism/vedanta.

I didn't "become" an atheist. As everyone else, I was born an atheist. Then I was fed theistic claims, which nobody demonstrated to be true, and so I categorized God alongside Donald Duck and Santa Claus as something that shows up on TV in december but probably doesn't really exist. I continue to listen to claims, arguments, and look at supposed "evidence". Never in my life of paying much attention have I ever heard an even slightly compelling argument or seen one convincing bit of evidence that there is a god. The Universe seems to consistently behave exactly like a place that doesn't have a god, or anything else that's supernatural, in it. By some popular definitions I can even go so far as to say that the universe behaves exactly like a universe that cannot possibly have a god in it (this applies mainly to the concept of a kind, all-powerful god, not so much evil, apathetic or lesser powerful god concepts, which don't necessarily completely defy logic, but still aren't supported by enough evidence to suggest that they might exist even if they conceivably hypothetically could).
This is why I am still an atheist. Because the theistic position hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated to reflect (or even resemble) reality. Not sufficiently to convince me at the age of 5, and not sufficiently to convince me at the age of 24.

Again, this does not apply if one grants such things as that Julius Caesar's legally appointed godhood counts as being a god, or that a wooden totem pole can be a god even in absence of attributes beyond those of any normal wooden pole with faces carved into it. In these cases, I could be called a theist, in that I don't deny the existence of Julius Caesar or totem poles, but that says nothing about their abilities, and so I choose in this case to exclude such definitions on the grounds that they are practically meaningless. When I say I'm an atheist, I limit the definition to beings who cannot die of old age and who have great supernatural powers and ultimate control over something on a vast scale (such as for example war, love, art, death, gardening, creation, destruction, sex, or in some cases all of existence).

One of my main hypotheses in the past was that religion mainly attracts and keeps followers by pandering to people's emotions. Earlier in human history, there was more emphasis on the negative side of the emotional spectrum (Such as fear and pain), whereas there's been more of a shift to the positive side in recent centuries (Such as "God loves you!" or as caricatured in the movie Dogma, "Buddy Jesus".). An interesting implication of this was that I predicted that there'd be less religious participation among males than females, since females are more emotionally influenced than males, on average. According to the research, this IS a worldwide trend and is true across all cultures and religions. Another interesting implication is that autistics would likely have the lowest levels of religious participation and associated beliefs and, interestingly enough, that seems to be the case.

Any evidence for this claim? Seems you are suggesting that you know the state of mind of an infant. Since you cannot even query an infant and determine their mind then you are stating something you believe to be true. You cannot even scientifically investigate question. Bad form for one that eschews all things that cannot be scientifically investigated.

Belief permeates even your atheistic consciousness. You express your beliefs automatically, not even aware that you are bound to a brain that cannot NOT believe. You just have a different system of belief than many others.

Are most NTs Atheists?

No. Most aspies, however, are non-religious.

You cannot believe in something before you can conceptualize it. Everyone is born not believing because everyone is born unaware of the concept. You can't believe it before you've even heard of it. Everyone is born not believing in bicycles as well, because nobody is born knowing what a bicycle is. Not believing is the default position. Atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of one.

Is this really going to turn into a misunderstanding over whether atheism means the lack of a belief in a god or the lack of belief of any kind?

This strikes me as illogical since the element of choice does not yet exist. How can one choose an ideological stance "atheism" when one is not capable of choosing at all? Would someone who, upon being presented with a religion, choose that religion, really be considered an atheist in the same sense as ideological atheists who explicitly reject the belief that there is one or more gods?

Most high-functioning Aspies, at least.