Interesting - but problematic statistics: Autism and Atheism

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

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.

No problem.

I post in a style I call "short tack". Make your point in 10 words or less if possible. I type my thoughts in statement form (if you notice I don't argue - - just state what I think) - then go back and remove any unnecessary words. It works for me. Its my style. I also usually only address one specific point.

But - - I also appreciate those (like you) who do longer more detailed thought out posts. There wouldn't be much discussion if everyone posted like me

Originally posted by FreezingVoid

I personally am an agnostic atheist, . . .

But isn't everyone really agnostic - - - believers and non-believers a like?

No one really knows. They may think they do - - but they don't.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FreezingVoid

I personally am an agnostic atheist, . . .

But isn't everyone really agnostic - - - believers and non-believers a like?

No one really knows. They may think they do - - but they don't.

Agnostic and gnostic pertains to what we believe we know.

An agnostic is someone who does not claim to know the truth, or believes that the truth is unknowable based on evidence presented.
A person who says, "I believe god to be real, but I do not know if he is" is an example of a agnostic theist.
A person who says "I do not believe in god, but I do not know if one does not exist." is an example of agnostic atheist.

An gnostic is someone who claims to know the truth, or believes the truth is knowable based on evidence presented.
A person who says. "God is real, I know this to be true" is an gnostic theist. Whether or not what they believe is true, they are still an gnostic, because they believe they "know" the truth.
Same thing with someone who says "No gods exists, i know this to be true." , they are an gnostic atheist. Again whether or not what they believe is true, they are gnostic, because they believe they "know" the truth.

Gnostic or agnostic by themselves mean very little, because what they are claiming to know, and not know, respectively needs to be defined.

I personally find someone who says "I do not believe in a god, I also am not an atheist. I am an agnostic." quite bothersome. Though from context I guess one can understand they mean they lack belief in a god, but do 'know' one does not exist aka agnostic atheism.
I suppose my only issue with agnostic being used in this way is because they are using an gnostic atheist definition of atheism, instead of what I feel to be its proper definition.

Originally posted by FreezingVoid

I suppose my only issue with agnostic being used in this way is because they are using an gnostic atheist definition of atheism, instead of what I feel to be its proper definition.

Thank you for the explanation.

However - - belief is still unknown IMO

Claiming something is true because you believe it - - - don't work for me.

The only real fact is "No One Knows".

Originally posted by FreezingVoid


I personally find someone who says "I do not believe in a god, I also am not an atheist. I am an agnostic." quite bothersome. Though from context I guess one can understand they mean they lack belief in a god, but do 'know' one does not exist aka agnostic atheism.

Yeah - that bothers me too.

I think it comes down to afraid to commit because of the social aspect of being Atheist.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FreezingVoid

I suppose my only issue with agnostic being used in this way is because they are using an gnostic atheist definition of atheism, instead of what I feel to be its proper definition.

Thank you for the explanation.

However - - belief is still unknown IMO

Claiming something is true because you believe it - - - don't work for me.

The only real fact is "No One Knows".

I completely agree. Gnostic atheism and gnostic theism to me seem very silly.

All knowledge is what we believe to be true.

I personally believe that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty, even with evidence(It could be flawed, or you are miss-interpreting)

Taking a solipsistic view on things, the only things one can ever be certain of the existence of is: ones self (Mainly their consciousness) and mathematics.

This topic seems to have been off track for several pages, and has diverged from religion and autism spectrum disorders talk to just a religious off topic debate. I am curious as to why the poster used the term "problematic" in the title. Problematic for whom exactly? Recruiters for some religious army? lol piss off. I'm leaving this thread of nonsense unless it gets back on topic.

Originally posted by thesungod
This argument/convo is mute. We all know how to cure autism, we've known since 1969.

I'm not saying he's supernatural, but he did cure little Amanda.

edit on 19-9-2011 by thesungod because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by thesungod because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by thesungod because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2011 by thesungod because: Trying to embed...

For as touching as that was and "Cute" I only have one question to ask, Do you believe in faith healing too?
That was a movie, as far as I am concerned movies are the least likely source for any scientific data or fact.

I have had to hold my son down for periods of hours to get him to stop freaking out... and guess what? He's almost 4 and has the vocabulary of a 2 year old at best (20-30 words). Still has in tantrums and isn't "cured".

The truth of the matter is, there is no cure for autism the only real cure is getting diagnosed early and using occupational therapy to combat the progression of the disorder. As I said before the video was touching but in no way shape or form would that "Cure" someone from Autism. If anything it would only teach the child that they don't like that situation and be even more recluse to people.

Originally posted by Darkchemistry
This topic seems to have been off track for several pages, and has diverged from religion and autism spectrum disorders talk to just a religious off topic debate. I am curious as to why the poster used the term "problematic" in the title. Problematic for whom exactly? Recruiters for some religious army? lol piss off. I'm leaving this thread of nonsense unless it gets back on topic.

Sorry for being distracted from this discussion.... as the topic moved away from the core issue, I tend to let people express themsleves - especially where I know less than they do.

In answer to your questios regarding the choice of the word "problematic" I was referring my own discomfort witht he apparent way this study's conclusion could be couched to appear as an assertion about atheism, rather than about autism.

I have always found fascinating the idea that peoplpe think differently (not in opinions... but "how" they think, how the process of reason differs) and autism has sometimes presented itself to me as simply that, a condition where the thought processes of another are considered different enough that others simply reject it as dysfunctional rather than atypical.

I knew some might be inclined to see this study as some kind of commentary on atheists... although that was not the case for me personally (though some still choose to beleive otherwise - bless their hearts.) It's no problem for me. The topic is still valid in my opinion. But when people are inclined to return to the study itself and what it may mean, and what it can be "forced" to mean... I will reengage.

Meanwhile I will check in from time to time to see if anyone is interested in the discussion I attempted to start.

Thanks for reading the thread... I might suggest (if you havent already) look at the comments section of the article... some real good stuff there; at least insofar as getting others people's take ont he topic... some are more "clinical" than we are... others are less so....

LOL OP why are you posting something that can be seen as questioning or criticizing the status quo.. I know that was not your intention but it is a hot button.

What I have gotten from this thread is that "athiest" are just as zealous about their athiest beliefs as those wacky religious types.

reply to post by Maxmars


A kind of respect a true atheist based on the fundamental principal of freedom, but, the atheist with some sort of anti-religious axe to grind, as the very reason for his atheism, is a bit of a fool, imho.

reply to OP

Well, Max, you really had me going there, you clever old brute.

What with me being an atheist and all, I must be pretty autistic, eh?

Of course, the study doesn't really say what those two little graphs seem to. It doesn't say that most, or even many atheists are autists. It just says that autists are more likely to be atheists than they are likely to be religious. But that kind of subtlety is always lost on Above Top Secret, isn't it? You know it as well as I do.

Still, before lining up for my black triangle armband (as used by the Nazis to identify mental defectives), I thought I'd better nip over to the Wired web site and take their Autism Quotient Test. Just to be sure.

Most autists who take the test get 32 points or higher. Average folk score around 16.

Guess what I scored? Eleven.

Now this didn't actually surprise me. I'm a bit of a party animal, me.

And I know it doesn't prove anything, one way or another, about that study of yours. But maybe posting my hopelessly inautistic score will reassure other atheists who feel intimidated by this.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Maxmars

 

A kind of respect a true atheist based on the fundamental principal of freedom, but, the atheist with some sort of anti-religious axe to grind, as the very reason for his atheism, is a bit of a fool, imho.

Agree. Anger at God or church is not atheism. How can you be angry at something you don't acknowledge?

That's why I try to use the term "true atheist".

God in politics - - - now that's a different story.