It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interesting - but problematic statistics: Autism and Atheism

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
I say worship ,because if I take humans saying they worship and just observe what they do it's the the same. the horses took time out of their day to stand together all facing the sun no one grazing and no one moving ,motionless for and hour or so .I 've seen many animals do this .but none with obvious ceremonial context of the horses

and yes I'm going to call it worship lots of sentient creatures have all the emotions and intelligence to carry this out, elephants are known to hold funerals for their dead, it's all part of the same continuum



I understand what you're saying and I believe to a point that you're right but we aren't in the same basket as other animals. We're a bit more complex.




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


pretty much sums it up. I would think the autistic would believe in God since God believers are seen as autistic. hilarious stuff.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is a non belief. A lack of belief. There is nothing of real fact that supports a deity in the position of man made religion.



a·the·ism    [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Dictionary.com


a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Webster


1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do. 2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist. Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.
Urban Dictionary


someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
cambridge dictionary


Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[1][2][3]
Here

There is an affirmative in use: doctrine or belief that there is no God. Some definitions don't even bother with listing a second. So, looking at etymology now:

atheist Look up atheist at Dictionary.com 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
and

atheism Look up atheism at Dictionary.com 1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness."
From the earliest coinage: Without God says nothing about belief. Denying the godsgives no diffrentiation in whether belief or a lack of belief is required. Abandoned of the gods requires having once belonged to them, and might imply belief of the gods even to this day. Godless, and ungodly are what you call people who do not practice the things that are of God. One is abandonment, the other is self-chosen.

Nowhere in the early definition of this word does it include a lack of a belief as the definition of Atheist, not even going back to the French playing around with old Greek words. This is a recent attempt to add or even change the definition of Atheism. Why?

There's 2 reasons I can think of:

1. As long as "lack of belief" is not in the definition, Atheism remains a belief system, in which the term faith can be used, because all faith is generally seen as is "belief+trust". To quote your definition of Faith "(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof" If there is no proof either way in God/gods, sapient flying squirrels, whatever, as long as the definition of Atheism is "belief that there is no God", then they have faith that their is no God. They believe and trust their own assumption.

2. An attempt is being made to claim Agnostics as Atheists. Agnostics, strictly, don't know. The thing is that a lot of agnostics lean towards there being no God/god/whatever. But without this definition of "a lack of belief", they get lumped with the agnostics who lean towards firmly believing in a God/gods/huh? that are often heavier Bible-thumpers than Christians.

I do understand wanting to split up the spectrum of Agnosticism. Hell, how many religious splits are there already that point to a slight difference in belief, being intolerable to both sides living in harmony over stupid quibbling are there? The problem with redefining Atheism to accept the less inclined to believe in their "no one knows for sure anything about God/god/godlessness", while it can "strengthen" the numbers of Atheists, it weakens the whole stance (hence the whole weak atheist). There will be a rift in those two groups soon enough, as with all ideology.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
I say worship ,because if I take humans saying they worship and just observe what they do it's the the same. the horses took time out of their day to stand together all facing the sun no one grazing and no one moving ,motionless for and hour or so .I 've seen many animals do this .but none with obvious ceremonial context of the horses

and yes I'm going to call it worship lots of sentient creatures have all the emotions and intelligence to carry this out, elephants are known to hold funerals for their dead, it's all part of the same continuum



I understand what you're saying and I believe to a point that you're right but we aren't in the same basket as other animals. We're a bit more complex.



there has been no mention in this thread of Temple Grandin she is a severe autistic known for her work with animals. She is a university professor and she designs slaughter houses. As touching my own conclusions from animal research I've done she would be the go to person for more enlightenment on this thread



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoguePhilosopherThe fact that there are far more atheists in those countries were people are better and more educated and also tend to have the naturally smarter folk suggests that blind faith believers are just that "Blind of Mind"!
Think this one through. If it's wrong to teach kids that God exists and shove it down their throats, if you live in a highly educated society where the outcome is a lack of belief in God, then they are teaching a conflicting worldview to the belief in God. That is all. It is not about being more intelligent, or less.

Besides the vast majority of information taught in education systems is regurgitation, not critical thinking:

Crud, now I'm going into Dinosaurs, and I so did not want to go there. *sigh*

You're told by almost every book that you pick up in early childhood that Dinosaurs are the original ancient of days, and that they didn't live with humans. The science behind it is not taught, even in passing, until late middle school/high school. Then, at that point, it's not taught in thorough detail unless you take college courses on the material, and I'm not talking beginner's courses, either. So, the vast majority of the population has an opinion on how accurate the the age of the Dinosaurs is not based upon firsthand knowledge or even a detailed study of the actual data behind 1 single fossil because they are educated to believe this without checking the work involved to come to these conclusions. Some people soak this up like ambrosia, others turn against it and attack it without knowing enough to defend their position.

Now, am I saying anywhere in here that the age of the Dinosaurs is wrong or that we walked with dinos? Not at all, I'm staying away from any personal belief on this, one way or the other. I'm just stating the facts on how this is taught. What I can say is that how this is taught does not align with the Biblical point of view easily. When having to choose between a God who may have talked to us in what, by our education, appears to be myths (irrelevant to whether or not it is--and a layman has a hard time proving/disproving it without relying on other people's work), but sticking to what we so know are the facts (that we never actually looked at the data on for ourselves), you wind up going with your best assumption. As in, if both science and Christianity are peddling "truths", I'm going with the one I've seen more numbers on, or the one I have a greater personal experience with, and I'm going to violently hold onto that.

This is not proof of education being superior to religion, but more a commentary on how malleable young minds are vs. how hardened older brains are.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde

I say wthere has been no mention in this thread of Temple Grandin


I am very much aware of Temple.

Not really sure how that supports your claim.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I have the Asperger's syndrome label myself I also have over 180 IQ is it special in anyway? No it's just labels. The out look I have is why? and How? They are always before me. There is no time for a facade, no reason for one, that's why we with AS feel on the outside of things and are socially awkward. I myself have studied all religions and have a respect for all religions. I see it as all the spiritual leaders of past and present are making free throws some go in some miss...none are 100% accurate, so you take what works and makes logical sense and you leave the rest behind.

There is no rationalization involved in the process of the decision, it's what works for yourself as an individual. If I had to take an non adaptive label and pigeon hole myself from all point of views other than my own for a religion it would be Buddhism, and that's not exactly fair because it's actually a psychology in it's purist essence. You are the creator and you sustain of all your own suffering, look at your actions that cause this suffering and change it It's not that hard, no matter how Pavlovian your habits may be.

People with AS don't tend to try and figure out other peoples motives for doing things. If I am cutting the grass it needs cutting...that's all there is to it. Other's are cutting grass for other reason's and to someone with AS this does not make any logical sense, we are blind to doing things for any other reason than for simply doing whatever it is...hence why we also get the label naive.

I'm cutting my grass because it's long and my neighbor well she's cutting grass in a swimsuit for attention in the neighborhood or a tan or because it's laundry day who know's and who care's it could be a myriad of reason's why she's out there and only she really knows. I just know what I am doing and the reason is always exactly what you see and I am doing it because it makes sense at the time.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Definition of Atheist from Merriam-Webster online: one who believes that there is no deity.

Am I aware that older definition used more complex definitions? Yes I am.

As with Christianity - - some like to get very complex on who is a real Christian. But the basic is: follower of Christ or Christ's teaching.

Any complexity beyond the basic: lack of belief in a deity - - - can only be defined by the individual.




edit on 23-9-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
They - rightly - stand that religion does not belong in government. Such as public/government schools - - government courtrooms - etc.
You deemed rightly. For instance: where do we get the idea that separation of Church and State is in the constitution? That phrase is a recent phrase, not from the founding of our country. To quote the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress has no right to prohibit the exercise of religion of even a leader of the country. If a teacher wants to pray, publically, there's no way a law that prohibits them from expressing their faith is even remotely constitutional. Just like if a leader gets up at the front of the class and burns a Bible for religious purposes, we have no constitutional right to press a ban. So while we can tout separation of Church and State all we want, a lot of what we put under this banner of separation is unconstitutional. We can put an amendment through to change this founding document, but we haven't. We've just made laws that go around it.

Originally posted by AnneeKeeping God out of government is not religious.
But forcing God-things out of individuals who make up the Government is. Semantics, I know.

Originally posted by steveknowsThe developed world became developed because we were able to seperate church from state which brought us out of the dark age. That's the very reason most islamic countries are still backward because they're yet to dothat. religion cripples state. thats's historical fact.
*drily* just like it's a historical fact that Christians believed the world was flat?
(By the way, this is bait.) Christopher Columbus went out to prove the world was flat while the Christian world knew it was round, and was trying to figure out how big it is. But we're not taught it this way, at least most of us aren't.

Originally posted by MountainmegEvangelicals show in stomping out Halloween parades
Which is hilrious because it's protestants fighting against Catholic beliefs.

Originally posted by steveknowsThe less developed countries don't have the resources to keep true figures as to the amount of people suffering a particular illness in the community.
It gets worse than this. Take for instance AIDS: 3rd world countries in Africa get US funding for AIDS patients. Some of the criteria for determining AIDS in Africa are symptoms of other diseases--but a lot of those other diseases are not funded. How is AIDS determined in Africa?reply to post by Annee
 
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you stated here. If and where Autism is a real disease is being masked by the overzealous.

Originally posted by steveknowsA big mistake people make, and sometimes to our own detriment, is when we apply human behaviour to animals. Like saying that your dog thinks it's a human because it acts like one. No your dog acts like a dog and thinks you're part of a pack. That's why sometimes little children are bitten by the family pet because the family sees it as part of the family and the child is bitten when acting like a human child it commits some k9 taboo that the family doesn't understand.
you know how you prevent the biting? The "Alpha" has to show the dog that it is the least member of the pack. Humping in dogs is a dominant trait. If a dog will hump you, they're likely to get territorial over food. I know, I know, off topic.

Originally posted by AnneeI realize elephants have an extremely complex society and emotions similar to humans. But I do not consider elephants mourning a loss in the same context as humans having a funeral.
That's because they have no casket to throw themselves in.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
If you look at the main powers of what a God is supposed to have, it is creation and destruction. We can create art, we can reproduce, we can burn art, and we can murder. We also have the power to choose what we create and what we destroy from moment to moment if we are aware of every thought process we have, and understand the ramifications if we were to carry out such volition. The third choice...No action. This is applicable to every human being.

Trying to see the beginning? is as easy as trying to see the end. It is infinite in both directions of possibilities. So it is vain to hunt or presuppose, the question shouldn't be is there a God or Gods? But does it matter? I am responsible for my own actions whether well thought out or heedless. I am not going to blame a devil or thank a god for my own actions that I chose to do myself, I am not a child I take full responsibility for my actions and need no excuse for my actions. If I hurt you I am sorry, If I helped you no worries.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeAny complexity beyond the basic: lack of belief in a deity - - - can only be defined by the individual.
I agree, but that wasn't my point for posting it.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkchemistryTrying to see the beginning? is as easy as trying to see the end. It is infinite in both directions of possibilities. So it is vain to hunt or presuppose, the question shouldn't be is there a God or Gods? But does it matter? I am responsible for my own actions whether well thought out or heedless. I am not going to blame a devil or thank a god for my own actions that I chose to do myself, I am not a child I take full responsibility for my actions and need no excuse for my actions. If I hurt you I am sorry, If I helped you no worries.
You'd be surprised at how many religions actually agree with you on you being responsible for your own actions. Having a God and/or Devil serve a different purpose therein.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
They all say that yes, they just have different instructions on getting there, why complicate something? Boil it down to its pure essence and understand it's flavored the same, fighting over who can complicate it the best is defunct reasoning.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Darkchemistry because: spell



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
To some degree, I agree. We do over-complicate every aspect of religion. But does that mean that all are right? Not necessarily. I see a lot of correlations, but the few differences can be glaring. And for most people it will be a pick your poison.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Maybe I will ease in a question of his beliefs in god to my girlfriends brother. He is has been diagnosed as autistic. He is pretty cool and really I think he will answer the question. He acts a little different but really is not severely affected by it.

It might take a while, I do not see him that often.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Why does there have to be a right and a wrong religion? Religion is a belief structure with some commonality, not a fact structure. We as living beings all have pain and joy that is a commonality based in fact, thinking my pain or joy is worse than anyone else's is a belief structure not a fact structure.
I could tell you it is worse or better and give many fine examples leading you to believe it so, based on your experience of how others or yourself has had it and you could profess it to others...however it would not be fact to someone else whom believes they had it better or worse.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I believe that atheism as merely the lack of belief of a higher power is the most appropriate definition.

Atheism in its original greek is atheos meaning godless. Which a person who simply lacks belief in a deity certainly is godless.

Whether or not the dictionary definition calls it a belief that a god does not exist, I feel it needs to be used by its broad definition, because what else do you call a person who lacks belief in a deity?

Agnostic. Possibly but looking at the definition of agnostic "The belief that based on evidence presented it is impossible to know if a god does or does not exist." it does not really fit.
Because based on that definition one can be both agnostic and an theist. They believe a god exists but do not know if god exists.

Agnostic also has an opposite called gnostic, "The belief that based on evidence presented it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist." Which is what most people think when they think of either a theist or an atheist, correct or not. An gnostic atheist or gnostic theist 'knows' that a god does not or does exist, respectively.

One could argue that one could call a person who lacks belief in a deity an agnostic atheist without changing the definition of atheist as it is found in the dictionary, but even that does not work, because it would basically still translate to be, "A person who believesa deity does not exist, but believes that based on presented evidence one can not know whether a god does or does not exist." which still does not convey the meaning of lack of belief in a deity.

Broadening the definition of atheism makes the most sense. Because even if one is describing an individual who beliefs a god does not exist, one can say "Gnostic Atheist" which translates as, "An individual who lacks belief in a deity, but believes that based on presented evidence they can know that a deity does not exist." Which still conveys the meaning intended.

---------------------

As for a correlation between atheism and autism.

I will admit that I a limited understanding of what autism is.

I personally suffer from schizoid personality disorder (Officially schizophrenia, but I dislike that term because it is too broad as doesn't really explain my condition)
Often times SPD (Schizoid personality disorder) is compared to autism, and for the longest time autism was considered to the same as SPD. However due to difference, such as autism surfacing during early childhood and SPD surfacing during adolescence, it became necessary for psychologists to separate the two.

Again I have limited understanding of what autism is, so I will continue on with my knowledge of SPD.

Most SPD's to my knowledge are either agnostic or gnostic atheists.
This is for a number of reasons.
The first being that religion is generally a group activity. Schizoids generally do not enjoy social interactions, not because they dislike people, but they have a hard time relating to them.
An inability to form an accurate inner model for people encountered in the outside world, makes it difficult to form relationships.
As well, Schizoids have an inability to express emotions, sometimes due to not experiencing emotions, other times just due to not having the personal tools to do so. They also have a hard time handling strong emotions, such as happiness, sadness or anger from other people.

This translates as well to spirituality.
As for a connection to a deity outside of the church.Since SPD's do not desire social interactions, they usually do not feel inclined to make a relationship with an individual who may or may not exist.
For connections to a universal oneness. SPD's tend to spend a lot of time experiencing the world internally, such that the inner world becomes more real than the external. Taken to the extremes it can cause the individual to lose touch with reality, and feel that the outside world does not exist, or does not matter.
----------------------

I personally am an agnostic atheist, though at times due to my mental state at an given moment, I can relate to solipsism, the deimurgic belief systems, universal oneness, and gnostic atheist.

As well, not due to my condition, I have studied the abrahamic religions, and mostly due the fact that they mostly stole idea's and practices taken from cultures they conquered, I have a hard time taking them seriously.
I will admit, if you take away the "This is real" aspect out of it, the idea's conveyed by these religions are quite good fiction.
edit on 23-9-2011 by FreezingVoid because: Grammatical Mistakes.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Sorry for double post, but I read this, and found it very appropriate.

Taken from evid3nc3.wordpress.com

Link


“Something cannot be what it is not. Nothing is defined by what it is not.”

I disagree on this point.

If it is normally expected that something should have a property and it doesn’t, then it is perfectly fine to define it as what it is not.

For example, if gas normally has lead in it and you have created a type of gas that doesn’t have lead, it is perfectly fine to define it as: unleaded (“gas that does not have lead”).

And if people are normally theists (90% in America) and you are not, then it is perfectly fine to define yourself as: atheist (“not a theist”).

So what makes atheists unusual is precisely that they don’t have a property that most people throughout history have had: belief in God. Defining them that way distinguishes them. It says “we know most people feel they need this property, but we don’t feel that way, so we don’t have it.”

If it ever becomes the case that most people in the world are atheists, then the term “atheist” will become meaningless because there will be no sizable percentage of theists to contrast them with.

Here are other examples of things that are defined by what they are not:

flightless birds
hairless mammals
fat-free mayo
topless dancing
nonpartisan organization

In other words, if, in a particular context, something is expected to have a property and it doesn’t, then it is noteworthy to point out that it doesn’t have that property.

People in the modern world, especially America, are generally expected to have the property of “belief in God”, so if someone doesn’t have it, then it is noteworthy to point out their lack of that property.



As well this video:


edit on 23-9-2011 by FreezingVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by Annee
They - rightly - stand that religion does not belong in government. Such as public/government schools - - government courtrooms - etc.
You deemed rightly. For instance: where do we get the idea that separation of Church and State is in the constitution?


In the last 20 years since I've been on line - - - - I've had the Separation of church and state debate so many times I've lost count. I'm not doing it again here.

I go by court cases won that set precedence.

You can find more information here if you wish: American Atheists

About American Atheists

Since 1963, American Atheists has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. It was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case, Murray v. Curlett, was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began:

"Your petitioners are atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."

Now in its fourth decade, American Atheists is dedicated to working for the civil rights of atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about atheism.

www.atheists.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreezingVoid
Atheism in its original greek is atheos meaning godless. Which a person who simply lacks belief in a deity certainly is godless.


YES!

As in Christianity - - the "root" is follower of Christ/teachings.

Then you can go into more definitions - - such as Baptist - Fundamentalist - Mormon - - etc.

But - - it does not change the "root" meaning.

Any Atheist - - beyond the "root" meaning - - can define themselves any way they choose.

No book - scholar - whatever - - - - can define who I am as an Atheist - - other then I lack belief in a deity.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join