Atheism and Autism

iamthereforeithink · **#201** by **iamthereforeithink** » Sep 14, 2013 10:53 am

Nora_Leonard wrote:And all of this relates to autism how?

Atheism, Agnosticism and Autism all start with "A" and end with "ism", and they rhyme with each other too.

Fallible · **#202** by **Fallible** » Sep 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Pararhyme.

Varangian · **#203** by **Varangian** » Sep 14, 2013 1:18 pm

THWOTH wrote:
Varangian wrote:
Whoopie wrote:
Skate wrote:
So, if, indeed, certain pathologies predispose individuals toward atheism and that it follows that atheism must then find its origins in genetics or neurological conditions, why did this supreme being responsible for creating nature create a genetic predisposition toward not believing in its existence?

The doctrine of "original sin" is used by theists to explain why there are copying errors in DNA replication which lead to such defects. Note that the NT Greek word for "sin" literally means "mistake".

I'm surprised noone spotted that clanger... Which theists? Those subscribing to the desert-nomad brand of monotheistic fuckwittery, or other theists, like those who belive in the Norse gods? No "original sin" there. But it is evident from Whoopie's use of capitalized "God" and references to the "original sin" hogwash what his preferred delusion is.

Of grandeur?

Rather delusions of adequacy...

theropod · **#204** by **theropod** » Sep 14, 2013 2:29 pm

Could not the idea be turned around? Even folks with "diminished" mental capabilities can see the notion of a god is absurd.

RS

Agrippina · **#205** by **Agrippina** » Sep 14, 2013 2:40 pm

I see we're back on the "atheism is a religion" track again - from another angle. Sigh!

SafeAsMilk · **#206** by **SafeAsMilk** » Sep 14, 2013 3:08 pm

theropod wrote:Could not the idea be turned around? Even folks with "diminished" mental capabilities can see the notion of a god is absurd.

RS

There's also the part where the OP'er suggested that autistic people are more self-centered and can't imagine a power higher than themselves. Yes, because believing the creator of the entire universe is so concerned about you isn't self-centered :lol:

You can learn about most of the problems with theism simply by listening to their objections to atheism.

Briton · **#207** by **Briton** » Sep 14, 2013 3:14 pm

Not that they can't imagine a higher power than themselves, he asserted that; 'they cannot accept a higher power that is greater than themselves'.

SafeAsMilk · **#208** by **SafeAsMilk** » Sep 14, 2013 3:24 pm

Briton wrote:Not that they can't imagine a higher power than themselves, he asserted that; 'they cannot accept a higher power that is greater than themselves'.

Ah, thanks for the correction :thumbup:

It makes the OP's assertion even more nonsensical.

Doubtdispelled · **#209** by **Doubtdispelled** » Sep 14, 2013 3:31 pm

Whoopie wrote:The intriguing thing is that natural selection appears to have favored religiosity over non-belief.

I'm so glad I decided to read this thread, otherwise I would have missed this little gem. :dance:

So - the real reason religions survive is down to natural selection (which most of their adherents deny in favour of two fig-leaf-wearers doing the horizontal mambo), and is not down to anything like - oh, let's just say, as a for instance, that no-one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Skinny Puppy · **#210** by **Skinny Puppy** » Sep 14, 2013 4:23 pm

Regina wrote:
Whoopie wrote:OK. Let us start with a scientific premise that exposes the limits of a purely naturalistic understanding. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but is only transferred between states. The finite energy present in the universe is thus a constant. While the law is a description of the conservation of energy, it says nothing of the origination of energy and appears to imply an infinite regress. There are two ways in which we can approach this problem:

i)If the universe is to be regarded as eternal, then there is no need to account for the origin of its energy as it has always existed. However, this raises a question as to why the total amount of energy is what it is. Is it arbitrary or is it specific? Is it of a critical value (like the amount of HEU in an atomic bomb)? If the latter is true, then what specified its quantity?

ii)If the universe is not eternal, but had a definite and absolute beginning (as scientific observation suggests), then the energy present in it must itself have arisen from non-energy: but this is in direct violation and contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics. The only way to avoid this is to conclude there is a source of energy extraneous to the universe.

Therefore, we have two arguments, one cosmological, the other teleological, in support of a potentially supernatural cause for the creation of the energy in the universe and for the specific amount of this energy (both positive and negative).

Skinny Puppy · **#211** by **Skinny Puppy** » Sep 14, 2013 4:26 pm

This is a unique thread of religious proof and enlightenment on the god question, but I do have to wonder how a pile of:

Constitutes evidence of a god in any known scientific endeavour/discipline?

‘cause all I’ve ever seen from *all* theists is an awful lot of fancy

and of course, they also use big words out of their dictionaries.

So we have:
• Horseshit
• Hand waving
• Big words

Where’s god in there and where’s the proof that we’re always told is coming, but for some strange reason, never, ever appears? :think:

SafeAsMilk · **#212** by **SafeAsMilk** » Sep 14, 2013 4:37 pm

Holy shit, if I ever get a horse I'm definitely doing that.

Whoopie · **#213** by **Whoopie** » Sep 14, 2013 6:17 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's what you want it to be, that doesn't mean it's more likely, let alone true.

One has to make a judgment and a call. Which is more plausible in this case? Accidence or design?

Appeal to incredulity and improbability in one statement.

Actually, an argument from improbability is used routinely in science to show if there is a determining factor involved or not.

The consensus is that the current configuration of the universe came about billions of years ago. The jury's still out on whether the universe as whole ever began to exist.

We have to deal with what we presently know, not what might be theoretically possible, and that is that the universe had a definite beginning over 13.7 billion years ago. We have no reason to presume that the Big Bang was not the moment when all the matter and energy present today was created. There is no evidence that our universe was reborn from the death of a previous universe - that is a pseudo-religious claim without any scientific merit and supporting evidence.

And the universe could be cyclical: expanding, imploding, expanding, imploding etc. etc.In the end there is still no evidence that the universe as whole began to exist.

Like I say, the idea of a cycle of death and rebirth is more cosmological religion than it is science. Even if the universe did explode and implode every 30 billion years or so, this chain of events may still itself have required a beginning and did not regress forever. There is also the problem, as I mentioned, that the amount of energy remains constant at a value which allows the universe to form and re-form while overcoming the problem of entropy. One has to account for the fact that not only that this energy exists but it exists in the amount that it does. The pertinent question is whether it exists in this quantity by design or by accident? You can choose the latter case if you like but I don't regard it as plausible at all.

Think about it: how does time, 'begin' to exist?

I don't see any problem with this at all. Time is related to space. If there was no space, there was no time.

Nature, just like universe is not limited to the current configuration, resultant from the Big Bang.

Nature is limited by the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created out of nothing. God, on the other hand, is not limited by physical laws and causes, and so could well have created energy from nothing. There is no naturalistic explanation for why things exist only how they behave and how to describe that behaviour and predict it.

Whoopie · **#214** by **Whoopie** » Sep 14, 2013 6:22 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Whoopie wrote:The intriguing thing is that natural selection appears to have favored religiosity over non-belief.

I'm so glad I decided to read this thread, otherwise I would have missed this little gem.

So - the real reason religions survive is down to natural selection (which most of their adherents deny in favour of two fig-leaf-wearers doing the horizontal mambo), and is not down to anything like - oh, let's just say, as a for instance, that no-one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It could well be true that an atheist mindset leads to having fewer offspring. A religious mindset that urges one to "go forth and multiply" would be favored by natural selection as it involves greater reproduction. Atheism may endanger human evolution and could even lead to our species' premature extinction. Does that not bother you at all?

Scar · **#215** by **Scar** » Sep 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Whoopie wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Whoopie wrote:The intriguing thing is that natural selection appears to have favored religiosity over non-belief.

I'm so glad I decided to read this thread, otherwise I would have missed this little gem.

So - the real reason religions survive is down to natural selection (which most of their adherents deny in favour of two fig-leaf-wearers doing the horizontal mambo), and is not down to anything like - oh, let's just say, as a for instance, that no-one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It could well be true that an atheist mindset leads to having fewer offspring. A religious mindset that urges one to "go forth and multiply" would be favored by natural selection as it involves greater reproduction. Atheism may endanger human evolution and could even lead to our species' premature extinction. Does that not bother you at all?

a) That's nonsense
b) no.

Paul · **#216** by **Paul** » Sep 14, 2013 6:47 pm

Whoopie wrote:It could well be true that an atheist mindset leads to having fewer offspring.?

Really? What utter bullshit.

Thomas Eshuis · **#217** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 14, 2013 6:48 pm

Whoopie wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's what you want it to be, that doesn't mean it's more likely, let alone true.

One has to make a judgment and a call.

No, one really doesn't. One can just as easily and far more rationally state: I don't know.

Whoopie wrote:Which is more plausible in this case? Accidence or design?

Since we have no example of a universe originating from design, there's no way to measure the plausibility.
This is still a thinly veiled appeal to personal incredulity, no matter how many times you reformulate it ad-nauseam.

Whoopie wrote:

Appeal to incredulity and improbability in one statement.

Actually, an argument from improbability is used routinely in science to show if there is a determining factor involved or not.

Dismissing something merely because it seems improbable to you is neither rational nor scientific.
All you're saying is: I can't imagine it, so it must be false.
Also, one option being improbable doesn't automatically make your option more probable or plausible.
Read this:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Anthropic_principle#Counter_arguments

Whoopie wrote:

The consensus is that the current configuration of the universe came about billions of years ago. The jury's still out on whether the universe as whole ever began to exist.

We have to deal with what we presently know,

And we don't know whether the universe, either it's present configuration or earlier incarnations, were designed.
Also, you started arguing about the creation of the universe, not me. Don't suddenly drop arguments because they've become inconvenient.

Whoopie wrote:not what might be theoretically possible,

This completely demolishes your 'proof' of God.
You haven't presented any present knowledge about the existence of a god, hence you are doing nothing more than hypothesising (theorising would be far to generous) what the 'cause' of the universe might be.

Whoopie wrote:and that is that the universe had a definite beginning over 13.7 billion years ago.

Still false.
Current configuration of the universe.
Again, how can time begin to exist?

Whoopie wrote:We have no reason to presume that the Big Bang was not the moment when all the matter and energy present today was created.

We also have no reason to presume that it is.

Whoopie wrote:There is no evidence that our universe was reborn from the death of a previous universe

There is also no evidence for the existence of any god or that the universe was conciously created.

Whoopie wrote:- that is a pseudo-religious claim without any scientific merit and supporting evidence.

No, it's an hypothesis/model, it has nothing to do with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
Do think before you start spouting nonsense.

Whoopie wrote:
And the universe could be cyclical: expanding, imploding, expanding, imploding etc. etc.In the end there is still no evidence that the universe as whole began to exist.

Like I say, the idea of a cycle of death and rebirth is more cosmological religion than it is science.

Einstein would like to have a word with you.
As would several other scientists.

Whoopie wrote:Even if the universe did explode and implode every 30 billion years or so, this chain of events may still itself have required a beginning and did not regress forever.

Or it might not have and didn't.
Once again you're blindly asserting creation without any evidence or rationale.

Whoopie wrote:There is also the problem, as I mentioned, that the amount of energy remains constant at a value which allows the universe to form and re-form while overcoming the problem of entropy.

That's because you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, even less than I with my limit knowledge about it.
More-over you clearly haven't even looked into the various cyclical models so this yet more desperate dismissal.
Note, by the way, that I'm not claiming the universe is cyclical, I only brought it up originally as a different option to ID.

Whoopie wrote:One has to account for the fact that not only that this energy exists but it exists in the amount that it does.

One does not. A good possibility is that this energy itself is eternal and therefore has no cause for it's existence, intelligence or otherwise.
Either way, there still remains the option of: I don't know.

Whoopie wrote:The pertinent question is whether it exists in this quantity by design or by accident?

Or because it simply does.
You're still asserting creation without reason. Willfully ignoring the possibility that energy has always existed.

Whoopie wrote:You can choose the latter case if you like but I don't regard it as plausible at all.

Fortunately the universe doesn't give two flying fucks about what you, or I for that matter, find plausible or not.
Once again you're appealing to personal incredulity.

Whoopie wrote:
Think about it: how does time, 'begin' to exist?

I don't see any problem with this at all. Time is related to space. If there was no space, there was no time.

Do you understand the concept of time?
Because if you did, you'd know that, time beginning to exist, is a nonsensical and contradictory statement.

Whoopie wrote:

Nature, just like universe is not limited to the current configuration, resultant from the Big Bang.

Nature is limited by the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created out of nothing.

It isn't from nothing if it originates from a previous incarnation of the universe and it doesn't have to come into existence if it has always existed.

Whoopie wrote:God, on the other hand, is not limited by physical laws and causes,

How do you know this?
'Cause this reeks of special pleading.

Whoopie wrote:and so could well have created energy from nothing.

Except he/she/it can't since there is no precedent for that.
Defining God outside the laws of nature is nothing but special pleading and blind assertion.

Whoopie wrote:rhere is no naturalistic explanation for why things exist only how they behave and how to describe that behaviour and predict it.

Still begging the question that there is a why in the first place.
Also stil failing to present a single scrap of evidence for the existence of your god.

Regina · **#218** by **Regina** » Sep 14, 2013 6:57 pm

Whoopie wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Whoopie wrote:The intriguing thing is that natural selection appears to have favored religiosity over non-belief.

I'm so glad I decided to read this thread, otherwise I would have missed this little gem.

So - the real reason religions survive is down to natural selection (which most of their adherents deny in favour of two fig-leaf-wearers doing the horizontal mambo), and is not down to anything like - oh, let's just say, as a for instance, that no-one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It could well be true that an atheist mindset leads to having fewer offspring. A religious mindset that urges one to "go forth and multiply" would be favored by natural selection as it involves greater reproduction. Atheism may endanger human evolution and could even lead to our species' premature extinction. Does that not bother you at all?

Who's to decide whether the species' extinction is premature? Is there a best before date?
Secondly, at currently 7 billion people, extinction, premature or other otherwise is won't happen any time soon.
Thirdly, no, why should I worry about extinction? You think humans are on some kind of mission and have to go on multiplying indefinitely? For most of the time, the known part of the universe did pretty well without homo sapiens sapiens.

Paul · **#219** by **Paul** » Sep 14, 2013 7:00 pm

I'm sure I got an email (or several) about curing premature extinction a while ago. How did they know I was an atheist (or agnostic, depending on which dictionary we using to argue from)?

Doubtdispelled · **#220** by **Doubtdispelled** » Sep 14, 2013 7:05 pm

Whoopie wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Whoopie wrote:The intriguing thing is that natural selection appears to have favored religiosity over non-belief.

I'm so glad I decided to read this thread, otherwise I would have missed this little gem.

So - the real reason religions survive is down to natural selection (which most of their adherents deny in favour of two fig-leaf-wearers doing the horizontal mambo), and is not down to anything like - oh, let's just say, as a for instance, that no-one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It could well be true that an atheist mindset leads to having fewer offspring. A religious mindset that urges one to "go forth and multiply" would be favored by natural selection as it involves greater reproduction. Atheism may endanger human evolution and could even lead to our species' premature extinction. Does that not bother you at all?

1. Eh, no. You're talking to an atheist mother of 4.

2. You're talking bollocks.

3. :picard:

Take your pick, Simon Whittaker.

Incidentally, I once knew a guy named Simon Whittaker. He was a shit-stirrer and piss-taker extraordinaire. He once, in front of a whole pub-full of my ex's mates, announced to him and everyone else who was listening that my new husband had 'had more women than he (my ex) had had hot dinners'.

Life is very strange.

Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Re: Atheism and Autism

Who is online