atheists and aspergers?
Religion as an adaptation
Richard Sosis and Candace Alcorta have reviewed several of the prominent theories for the adaptive value of religion.[1] Many are "social solidarity theories", which view religion as having evolved to enhance cooperation and cohesion within groups. Group membership in turn provides benefits which can enhance an individual's chances for survival and reproduction.
These social solidarity theories may help to explain the painful or dangerous nature of many religious rituals. Costly-signaling theory suggests that such rituals might serve as public and hard to fake signals that an individual's commitment to the group is sincere. Since there would be a considerable benefit in trying to cheat the system - taking advantage of group living benefits without taking on any possible costs - the ritual would not be something simple that can be taken lightly.[1] Warfare is a good example of a cost of group living, and Richard Sosis, Howard C. Kress, and James S. Boster carried out a cross-cultural survey which demonstrated that men in societies which engage in war do submit to the costliest rituals.[2]
Good points. Church is exactly that - the first point. My brother always says if you proved tomorrow that God didn't exist, people would still go to church. The second point, about rituals is interesting. A great Quaker scholar once told me that Man requires ritual. If you read the Bible, you're not going to find any commandment to cross yourself in front of certain statues. Most rituals are man-made.
I came across those on Wiki. It could explain why NT's are uncertain about Aspies, because we can't seem to do the ritual stuff that they do all the time. They see us as rogues and shun us.
I guess I would be an atypical atheist because although I do not believe in God I do subscribe to some form of naturalistic afterlife; particularly in respect to parallel universes. Like for instance I was literally leaping off a tram (streetcar or trolley car) at the age of 9 on the tram terminus and a car failed to see me leaping off and came to a screeching stop only one inch from my legs with smoke still coming out of the skid marks. My stupidity of leaping of the tram deck and not using the steps made my survival look almost "miraculous" because the driver would have required extraordinary reflexes to stop in time. But I being an atheist I don't believe in miracles so I just think in many a parallel universe I was not so lucky and that car failed to stop and killed me outright. In that parallel universe could well have been my mother mourning over my grave as the little white child's coffin was lowered in. But since I see it clearly impossible to observer my own death my reality went on to an existence where I lived on with that car in an extreme stroke of luck stopped just in time. So I find the concept of parallel universes to be eminently plausible but as to that car that came to as screeching halt being stopped by the hands of some omnipotent sky fairy I find to be totally ridiculous.
Last edited by stgiordanobruno on 21 Dec 2011, 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
I assume you are aware there is not a snip or a scrap of empirical evidence that "parallel universes" exist and there are multiple versions of us.
Which is to say that belief in "other worlds" is as absurd as belief in The Sky Spook.
ruveyn
I assume you are aware there is not a snip or a scrap of empirical evidence that "parallel universes" exist and there are multiple versions of us.
Which is to say that belief in "other worlds" is as absurd as belief in The Sky Spook.
ruveyn
Here is a 44.04 minute video of the multiverse theory, it is very much worth a watch!!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wbt3tEc1pw[/youtube]
Its an interesting theory I think. Sometimes I wonder if dreams are like wandering through our other selves and that in some other universes we are not even human, we could be a plant, or even a speck of dust. But then I wonder why I am not in the universe where I am rich and powerful, or popular and socially successful.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wbt3tEc1pw[/youtube]
I have seen several versions of this on the Science Channel, the History Channel and even PBS. Still, there is no empirical evidence that clearly supports the hypothesis. It is an amusing hypothesis and I like it very much, but where is the evidence that clearly supports it?
And the hypothesis is untestable. How do we observe alternate universes, worlds or time lines? An observer can be in at most one world and that is what he sees either directly or indirectly. The fact that the multi-world hypothesis is consistent with quantum physics does not constitute evidence to support it.
A hypothesis that cannot be tested, cannot be taken seriously.
ruveyn
it might have been that religion was, as many people here have been saying, a contradiction to the logical nature of the aspie but i doubt that was the case with me. it was never a battle between science and religion for me- the two fit so well together and i was religious but not a literalist or conservative and i wasnt big on the church either i just really liked jesus. after that i became a pagan and that religion was fulfilling too. i liked that connection with nature in my religion and the lack of rigid doctrine and ritual. im an athiest now and i read something marx said which i think explains why i suddenly flipped(it was very sudden unlike my transition from christian to pagan).
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation."
my religion was a comfort to me when i needed it and it held me up when i was down at times but i dont need it anymore. the conditions of my life are not the same- i "demand to give up the condition which needs illusions." my life doesnt suck as much anymore and i know, theoretically, how i can fix some of the things about this world that do suck and i dont really need religion for that. i guess it is different for each person though. this is just me.
The unicorn is massless as well as invisible.
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?
God is massless as is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the invisible dragon in my garage
look up the song The Flying Spaghetti Monster vs Invisible Pink Unicorn i got it on MP3 its awesome
the MP3 download link is in description
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TagemN7kkw[/youtube]
Pastafarian rock is so much cooler than Christian rock
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8vc1EUJksQ&feature=related[/youtube]
_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
I assume you are aware there is not a snip or a scrap of empirical evidence that "parallel universes" exist and there are multiple versions of us.
Which is to say that belief in "other worlds" is as absurd as belief in The Sky Spook.
ruveyn
Here is a 44.04 minute video of the multiverse theory, it is very much worth a watch!!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wbt3tEc1pw[/youtube]
is it strange that this is the first time i have seen this yet the Multiverse Theory and Strings Theory are common topics among me and friends when we are high, that was when i was first introduced to the Strings Theory
_________________
WP Strident Atheist
If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have accepted him as your lord and savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wbt3tEc1pw[/youtube]
I have seen several versions of this on the Science Channel, the History Channel and even PBS. Still, there is no empirical evidence that clearly supports the hypothesis. It is an amusing hypothesis and I like it very much, but where is the evidence that clearly supports it?
And the hypothesis is untestable. How do we observe alternate universes, worlds or time lines? An observer can be in at most one world and that is what he sees either directly or indirectly. The fact that the multi-world hypothesis is consistent with quantum physics does not constitute evidence to support it.
A hypothesis that cannot be tested, cannot be taken seriously.
ruveyn
The one universe hypothesis definitely can never be tested so it certainly cannot be taken seriously. Certainly no more seriously than a one earth hypothesis was back in antiquity when it was assumed it was the only possible terrestrial surface known and totally oblivious to hostile worlds such as the surface to Venus of Mars. "Alien worlds with no air as we know it to breathe, nonsense" they would say. The problems I have with the one universe hypothesis are the paradoxes it besets such as the Schrödinger’s cat paradox or the Grandfather paradox. Under the multi-world hypothesis these are not paradoxes at all and besides I consider any paradoxical theory as just a theory against itself so they also certainly should never be taken seriously.
