atheists and aspergers?

Page 4 of 7 [ 107 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AnotherKind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 769
Location: Neverland

16 Dec 2011, 8:35 am

MarcusTulliusCicero wrote:

Yeah, atheists tend to mock agnostics a lot for being 'indecisive'

Indecisive or simply not presumptuous?

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
- Carl Sagan

Maybe both. How can we be sure of what we don't know for sure?

_________________
Agnostic atheist. Hardcore determinist. Misanthrope. Objectivist. INTP.
AS: 165, NT: 44

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

16 Dec 2011, 8:40 am

MarcusTulliusCicero wrote:

Yeah, atheists tend to mock agnostics a lot for being 'indecisive'

Indecisive or simply not presumptuous?

But the question of whether God exists is meaningless because it's unanswerable. Traditionally, "agnostics" knew this. Today "agnostic" seems to mean "I haven't yet examined the 'evidence' that each religion has to support its beliefs, therefore I will withhold my judgement."

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Dec 2011, 12:11 pm

dmm1010 wrote:

MarcusTulliusCicero wrote:

Yeah, atheists tend to mock agnostics a lot for being 'indecisive'

Indecisive or simply not presumptuous?

Thats a strange way to cut up the pie.

Ag- nostic, means to "not know".

Folks who "dont know" whether a god exists or not are agnositc. It doesnt make a difference why they arrive at that. It could be because they fervently believe that you cant know, or it could be that they personally dont know enough or dont give a damn enough about the workings of the universe to render judgement one way or the other.

"Atheists" "know" that there is no god. And "theists" "know" that there is one ( or more). Agnositcs dont "know" one way or the other.

This subset of "athiests" you talk about who dont claim to know for a fact that there is no God should really be classified as "agnositcs".

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

16 Dec 2011, 12:59 pm

Skeith wrote:

why does it seem like there are more atheists in aspergers then other religions? this is just a curiousity that ive noted on wrong planet.

"Than other religions"? Atheism isn't a religion. And a lot of Aspies are atheist because we tend to be quite logical folk who don't believe our imaginary friends are actually real.

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

16 Dec 2011, 1:55 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Theism and atheism both deal with "belief", one can be an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist or gnostic atheist. People who simply don't care either way I've seen referred to as "apatheists". When someone calls themself an agnostic they're not giving a complete answer.

_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.

unduki
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 652

16 Dec 2011, 2:31 pm

MCalavera wrote:

unduki wrote:

Y'all crack me up with your self-declared, superior idealism. I think the reason Aspies are atheists is because we think we know more than everyone else and are too stubborn to be subordinate to the will of others - and we hate our parents more and reject anything they might offer, such as their religious beliefs - especially when we don't fit into the perfect plan.

The Bible and man-made religion are two very different entities. Man has polluted the Word of God as much or more than they're polluted the planet. Saying the Bible is hypocritical just tells me you didn't read it with an open mind. It's always made perfect sense to me.

Yes, a supposedly loving God commanding the slaughter of children makes perfect sense indeed.

You'll have to be more specific about your reference. I can think of more than one instance where something like that happened. Your statement obviously takes whatever action you were referring to out of context.

_________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

16 Dec 2011, 2:35 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

According to Dictionary.com, an agnostic is "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience [italics mine]."

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

16 Dec 2011, 7:02 pm

dmm1010 wrote:

I can't claim to know that as I write this there isn't an invisible pink unicorn standing in my living room. However, if I assumed the unicorn's existence despite a complete lack of supporting evidence I would rightfully be regarded as delusional; and, if it's impossible to test whether the unicorn exists then questioning its existence is an exercise in futility.

The unicorn would have mass. You'd either hear the floorboards creek or bump into it.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

16 Dec 2011, 7:05 pm

unduki wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

unduki wrote:

Yes, a supposedly loving God commanding the slaughter of children makes perfect sense indeed.

So you think the slaughter of children can be justified in any way with a supposedly loving God in the equation?

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

16 Dec 2011, 7:18 pm

Telekon wrote:

The unicorn would have mass. You'd either hear the floorboards creek or bump into it.

The unicorn is massless as well as invisible. :roll:

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

16 Dec 2011, 7:35 pm

dmm1010 wrote:

Telekon wrote:

The unicorn would have mass. You'd either hear the floorboards creek or bump into it.

The unicorn is massless as well as invisible. :roll:

That's not what you said. You just said that it was invisible. It doesn't make sense now - how would an animal (albeit a mythical one) have no mass? If it had no mass, how could it stand?

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

16 Dec 2011, 7:58 pm

MarcusTulliusCicero wrote:

Yeah, atheists tend to mock agnostics a lot for being 'indecisive'

Indecisive or simply not presumptuous?

What's with this double standard? It should work both ways, we should expect Christians and any other theists to also admit the accusation of being presumptuous by not being agnostic.

_________________
.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

16 Dec 2011, 8:00 pm

Agnostics- atheists without balls

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

16 Dec 2011, 8:44 pm

Telekon wrote:

That's not what you said. You just said that it was invisible. It doesn't make sense now - how would an animal (albeit a mythical one) have no mass? If it had no mass, how could it stand?

I stated the unicorn was "invisible," which can also mean imperceptible. This was the intended meaning, and to this end she is massless; and, she only "stands" in the sense that she remains still with respect to my frame of reference.

Are you aware that it's precisely this sort of rationalization that so-called religious scholars have been engaging in for years as science has progressively shined light into the various rat holes in which their God might have been hiding?

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

16 Dec 2011, 10:04 pm

dmm1010 wrote:

Telekon wrote:

That's not what you said. You just said that it was invisible. It doesn't make sense now - how would an animal (albeit a mythical one) have no mass? If it had no mass, how could it stand?

What do you mean "to this end she is massless"? An object's being imperceptible does not imply that it is massless. An imperceptible object could have mass, e.g. a person wearing a suit made of material that reflects light would be invisible and still have mass. Anyway, you said that the unicorn was standing. How is that possible if the unicorn is massless? Are the laws of physics in your hypothetical scenario upside down?

Quote:

Are you aware that it's precisely this sort of rationalization that so-called religious scholars have been engaging in for years as science has progressively shined light into the various rat holes in which their God might have been hiding?

Whoa dude, you're like, so rational. You're so rational that you can't understand how a being with no mass couldn't stand on your floor.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

16 Dec 2011, 11:11 pm

Telekon wrote:

You're incorrect.

First of all, a suit that simply reflects light would of course be quite visible; but, that's beside the point.

An object that's invisible across the electromagnetic spectrum certainly needn't be massless. However if the object weren't so, it would at least theoretically be detectable due to its gravity. This is what you called me out on using different words. I explained that the word invisible has an alternate meaning of imperceptible, that is to say undetectable. For an object to be undetectable it must not interact with energy and matter; therefore it cannot have mass.

Quote:

Anyway, you said that the unicorn was standing. How is that possible if the unicorn is massless?

See below.

Quote:

Are the laws of physics in your hypothetical scenario upside down?

No, but what if they were so? What is your purpose for arguing with me about an intentionally nonsensical scenario devised to illustrate the silliness of theists?

Quote:

Whoa dude, you're like, so rational. You're so rational you can't understand how a being with no mass couldn't stand on your floor.

Show me where I said the unicorn could be standing on my floor. I stated she could be standing in my living room. You seem to be under the impression that necessarily implies she's standing on the floor. The word "standing" can also mean occupying a place or location, and this doesn't require gravitation. In fact her hooves could even be touching the floor.

Page 4 of 7 [ 107 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

atheists and aspergers? Post Reply New Topic

atheists and aspergers?