[Schilly]

The thing is it really isn't a discussion about theology at all. All I was saying is that it is common for autistic spectrum people to not believe in god because frankly they can't grasp such an abstract concept. AUtistic people don't process information the same way non-autistic people do. people need to try to understand that.

E-Blazer can argue it all he wants, and to him it is logical to believe in God, that's fine it' logical to the majority of the people on our planet. But the logic that is used to justify a beleif in GOd isn't teh same type of logic the mind of many Autistic spectrum people process.

Like Lalooska sorry it turned into a theological discussion, it wasn't intended to and really theology and the existence of god or Creation has very little to do with it. IMO though we all need to have a little more open mindedness to autistic people and how they think.

[Jayps15]

Originally Posted by Schilly

The thing is it really isn't a discussion about theology at all. All I was saying is that it is common for autistic spectrum people to not believe in god because frankly they can't grasp such an abstract concept. AUtistic people don't process information the same way non-autistic people do. people need to try to understand that.

E-Blazer can argue it all he wants, and to him it is logical to believe in God, that's fine it' logical to the majority of the people on our planet. But the logic that is used to justify a beleif in GOd isn't teh same type of logic the mind of many Autistic spectrum people process.

Like Lalooska sorry it turned into a theological discussion, it wasn't intended to and really theology and the existence of god or Creation has very little to do with it. IMO though we all need to have a little more open mindedness to autistic people and how they think.

Abstract theories and questions can be a major pain to someone on the spectrum, I myself have trouble answering questions like this and it's continually frustrating. That being said I think it's important to point out that just because we think differently doesn't mean what's coming out is patently wrong. Autistics tend to be very unbiased, basing answers on what they see at hand and not off past experiences or their own beliefs. Something about operating in our own little world tends separate our feelings from a situation, leaving only what we can see. It's not always the case, but often times leaves us with a very unique, honest perspective on something that I think a lot of neurologically typical people have trouble grasping.

[Schilly]

Originally Posted by Jayps15

Abstract theories and questions can be a major pain to someone on the spectrum, I myself have trouble answering questions like this and it's continually frustrating. That being said I think it's important to point out that just because we think differently doesn't mean what's coming out is patently wrong. Autistics tend to be very unbiased, basing answers on what they see at hand and not off past experiences or their own beliefs. Something about operating in our own little world tends separate our feelings from a situation, leaving only what we can see. It's not always the case, but often times leaves us with a very unique, honest perspective on something that I think a lot of neurologically typical people have trouble grasping.

Bingo, that's what I was trying to say but my NT brain kept getting in the way, LOL.

[crandc]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

I think you're both missing the point. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe is true. So there was a heckuva explosion 10 billion years ago or so and then there was a universe where one didn't exist before. When you talk about the causation of that event, there's no logical basis to assume that it either just happened due to unexplained natural phenomena or because a creator was behind it. Similarly with the origin of life, there's no way to get at the causation of life beginning. It could have happened through strictly natural events and the passage of a tremendous amount of time, or it could equally reasonably have happened because a creator brought the elements of life together and caused it to begin. In a total absence of any tangible evidence, either explanation is nothing more than a statement of faith.

e_blazer, that is not what Big Bang theory states. Or for that matter what evolutions states. You are sounding, sorry to say, like Talkhard and I know you are more intelligent than that.

Evidence for both big bang and evolution is abundant. I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but saying evolution and/or big bang are "statement of faith" shows that a person has not studied either.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by crandc

e_blazer, that is not what Big Bang theory states. Or for that matter what evolutions states. You are sounding, sorry to say, like Talkhard and I know you are more intelligent than that.

Evidence for both big bang and evolution is abundant. I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but saying evolution and/or big bang are "statement of faith" shows that a person has not studied either.

Your reading comprehension skills are getting waylaid by your science zeal, crandc.

I fully recognize that evidence for the big bang and evolution is abundant and I'm not saying that believing in them is a statement of faith. A logical conclusion can be reached by looking at scientific evidence that it is most likely, knowing what we do today, that the universe began in the manner best understood by the big bang theory. I never said diddly about evolution in my original post. What I did talk about was the origin of life...that moment when the first living cell with the ability to replicate itself came into existence. Now, agreeing that we have these two events that most probably occurred at some point in time, what can be said with any certainty about what caused them to take place? You have said in prior posts that you place your belief in the power of time and nature. I place mine in the power of a creator to kickstart the process. Either choice, it seems to me, takes faith in something that cannot be known with certainty, but simply requires belief.

I'm going to ignore the little Talkhard jab this one time due to past chocolate indulgences, but don't let it happen again.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Schilly

E-Blazer can argue it all he wants, and to him it is logical to believe in God, that's fine it' logical to the majority of the people on our planet. But the logic that is used to justify a beleif in GOd isn't teh same type of logic the mind of many Autistic spectrum people process.

Schilly, I don't claim to know anything about how the mind of a person with Asperger's syndrome works and you may well be right that they have a more difficult time with believing things that are not tangible. My point was not to say that belief in God is mandated by some set of logic equations, but rather that either a belief or a disbelief in God is fundamentally a choice about what to believe about our universe and our world that is not based on known facts and mathematical formulae.

[Schilly]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Schilly, I don't claim to know anything about how the mind of a person with Asperger's syndrome works and you may well be right that they have a more difficult time with believing things that are not tangible. My point was not to say that belief in God is mandated by some set of logic equations, but rather that either a belief or a disbelief in God is fundamentally a choice about what to believe about our universe and our world that is not based on known facts and mathematical formulae.

TO you that is correct. If you had bothered to pay attention the context of the thread and the topic was regarding how many people with aspergers process things. Many do believe in god and creation. But most struggle with the tangible element.

Do you believe in Gremlins?

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by Schilly

Do you believe in Gremlins?

Duh. All scientific evidence points to their existence.



Now, as for what caused the creation of such a butt-ugly car, I'll leave that to your own opinion.

[Yega1979]

Originally Posted by Jayps15

I think you misinterpreted me as well, I wasn't stating anything as true or fact. I was merely pointing out that a statement of fact or belief without proof is not logical. There's no proof that there's other life out there on other planets, the probability is high as Schilly pointed out, but it's still not proven and therefore anyone stating that there is without a doubt life on other planets is only doing so out of their own beliefs and not fact.

Belief without proof is "illogical"? Hmmm....

[Jayps15]

Originally Posted by Yega1979

Belief without proof is "illogical"? Hmmm....

The point of this post is?