atheists and aspergers?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

Telekon
Velociraptor

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

17 Dec 2011, 1:07 am

dmm1010 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 exert neither electromagnetic nor gravitational influence.

This is total sophistry. "Undetectable" conveys a different meaning than the word you originally used. It doesn't help you, though. An object could be undetectable and have mass (it could be hidden in a spot that no one could find). But if that's what you meant, the scenario you set up is pointless. You're assuming that God's existence is analogous to your hypothetical unicorn. You assume that if the unicorn can't be detected, then neither can God.

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?

Because you conjured an impossible scenario and assumed that it must apply to God. I can think of impossible entities and relate their qualities to God but that's question begging. God might be an entirely different sort of entity.

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.

Special relativity says that objects with no mass move at the speed of light. I'm not concerned whether the unicorn is standing on a surface, but whether it could stand at all. It would be infinitely heavy in that state. So somehow a unicorn is able to exist as a unicorn (and stand at that) while moving at the speed of light in your living room. Is it made out of some indestructible aether?

jackmt
Raven
Raven

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 116
Location: Missoula, MT

17 Dec 2011, 2:44 am

PM wrote:

It seems that the correlation between Asperger's Syndrome and Atheism stems from the fact that many people on the spectrum find the principles and dogma of religion to be illogical.

I find no such correlation. I have always believed in a God and more than half the people in my Aspie support group believe in at least some sort of Creator. They say that most Aspies they know believe as well. And we all have highly individualized belief systems and most of us reject formal religion.
I think this phenomenon you cite is more likely a matter of "birds of a feather..."
And this repetitive appeal (among Aspies on sites hostile to God) to the illogic of belief is illogical. You appeal to a flaw in our make-up - our syndrome, and let's not be PC about it; we are flawed - to say you cannot believe. But you don't see that your inabilty to apprehend is a deficit, and therefore subject to error, and yet you treat it as an asset. Perhaps it is a convenient excuse to avoid your responsibilty to God. I have difficulty relating as well, but that is my limitation, not God's. And anyone's ability or inabilty to believe has no effect on the existence of God.
For all A, either A is the case or not A is the case. Either there is a God, or there is not. Logically, neither make sense to me, yet exactly one of them must be true and the other false.
But it is said that one can only learn something with logic if one has first learned something without it.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

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

17 Dec 2011, 3:17 am

Telekon wrote:

This is total sophistry.

It's definitely total sophistry, but I don't see how it differs from that engaged in by Christian apologists.

Quote:

"Undetectable" conveys a different meaning than the word you originally used. It doesn't help you, though. An object could be undetectable and have mass (it could be hidden in a spot that no one could find).

Hidden is not synonymous with intrinsically undetectable.

Quote:

But if that's what you meant, the scenario you set up is pointless. You're assuming that God's existence is analogous to your hypothetical unicorn. You assume that if the unicorn can't be detected, then neither can God.

To the best of my knowledge no religion, extant or otherwise, is based on empirical evidence of the existence of god(s).

Quote:

The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is just as impossible an entity as my imaginary transcendental unicorn. To which god are you referring?

Quote:

The unicorn doesn't move at the speed of light because it has no energy. :roll:

For your information, special relativity doesn't state that particles with zero rest mass are ever "infinitely heavy." You're thinking of objects with nonzero rest mass, which can never be accelerated to light speed anyway.

With regard to invisible unicorns, you win. I concede that my original scenario was poorly planned.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 4:45 am

Vigilans wrote:

Agnostics- atheists without balls

Admitting one does not know something when he does not know something is actually showing some courage and some reality. Pretending something exists just because one believes in it, is childish. Since the Nature of God cannot be knows empirically by live humans, belief in God is totally unsupported by any evidence. The only honest thing one can say is: "I do not know if God exists or not and there is no way for a human to know it".

ruveyn

AnotherKind
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2011, 4:49 am

Vigilans wrote:

Agnostics- atheists without balls

Agnostics - atheists with balls for both religious atheists and theists.

Quote:

Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "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."In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."

From Wikipedia

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

dogslife
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 266

17 Dec 2011, 12:52 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Agnostics- atheists without balls

I can see it both ways. I've met agnostics who admit that they're just scared to fully embrace atheism, and I've also met the kind you describe who go about it very intelligently.

When I was 18 and had atheism as a special interest I was very judgmental of agnostic people, and extremely frustrated by them, but now I can definitely respect/appreciate their point of view.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 1:23 pm

Telekon wrote:

yoo hoo! Unicorns do not exist. Some massless bosons do. Photons, for example.

ruveyn

AnotherKind
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2011, 2:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:

yoo hoo! Unicorns do not exist. Some massless bosons do. Photons, for example.

ruveyn

Yes, they exist. I saw one of them at tv

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

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

17 Dec 2011, 3:04 pm

The way I see it, I can't say with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist but I can safely assume he doesn't.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2011, 5:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Agnostics- atheists without balls

That's actually quoting Stephen Colbert's book, I personally don't think that, but I do find it amusing

_________________
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

Telekon
Velociraptor

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

17 Dec 2011, 9:24 pm

dmm1010 wrote:

The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is just as impossible an entity as my imaginary transcendental unicorn. To which god are you referring?

Why is the Christian God an impossible entity? That is a stronger claim than saying there is no evidence for God.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

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

17 Dec 2011, 11:31 pm

Telekon wrote:

Why is the Christian God an impossible entity? That is a stronger claim than saying there is no evidence for God.

Surely you jest! How can you scoff at the idea of a pink unicorn that has zero relativistic mass, yet see no issue with an anthropomorphic deity who created the Universe from nothing by speaking? The Christian God violates so many physical laws I don't even know where to begin.

DaBuddha
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 15 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 32

18 Dec 2011, 1:20 am

I am unconvinced there is any evidence supporting the existence of a God. I am also unconvinced there is any evidence disproving the existence of God.

Thus there is nothing to discuss other than pure conjecture, and that became boring the millionth time I participated in a discussion about it.

dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

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

18 Dec 2011, 2:47 am

DaBuddha wrote:

I strongly recommend that everyone who's undecided about whether YHWH is likely to exist reads the Bible.

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

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

18 Dec 2011, 9:14 am

DaBuddha wrote:

Alright, you don't know, neither does anyone else, but at least you admit it. Now, what do you believe?

_________________
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

18 Dec 2011, 11:13 am

MCalavera wrote:

unduki wrote:

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.

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

Your argument is too generic. Why won't you be more specific? You sound like you're parroting points made by someone else. Did you read this in the Bible?

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

Page 5 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?