They really are that weird

It won’t come as a surprise to a lot of you that, by their own admission, atheists tend to be neurologically atypical. This is based not only on their behavior, but on diagnostics like Asperger’s tests and other tests that demonstrate a lack of empathy. But if you need more evidence, here it is.

During an exchange on Twitter, someone questioned whether God is moral, because there is terrible suffering in the world for no obvious reason. I asked this guy to explain to those who suffer that they are going to be annihilated by Nature after this one crappy life. Because, that’s the reality if there is no God. This is how he responded:

“Sorry if you have a crappy life, but not everyone does.” And meanwhile Richard Dawkins and James Watson will enjoy their good lunch.

That’s their response to horrible suffering in the world, and it’s supposedly better than telling someone God allows suffering for reasons we don’t quite understand, but if you accept Jesus, you will have eternal joy with Him.

26 thoughts on “They really are that weird

  1. That’s not science, it’s prejudice. My personal experience plays no part in this. Nobody has evidence that there is a god.

  2. The whole tone of the linked site reeks of confirmation bias. Let’s say, for argument’s sake that autistic people are more likely to be atheist. You can’t then say that atheistic people are more likely to be autistic.

  3. I find it interesting that you choose a post in which I highlight the bizarre response of an atheist to another person’s horrendous suffering to dispute the claim that atheists tend to be socially atypical.

    In any case, the combination of the tendency of socially autistic people to be atheist with the frequency of self-reported higher-than-average scores on tests of social autism for militantly atheist people strongly suggests a causal link. This of course does not mean all atheists are social autists, but it’s extremely likely that a connection exists between militant atheism and neurological atypicality. It’s readily apparent to those of us who observe the otherwise bizarrely cold behavior of people like Richard Dawkins and any number of self-identified atheists on social media.

  4. essiep: ‘Nobody has evidence that there is a god.’

    It’s not very wise to make this assertion without examining the numerous definitions and/or categories of discovering (or uncovering) evidence for a certain phenomena, entity, person, proving the existence of God, etc.

    There is so many ways that you can prove or disprove of something. By using so many different, while still maintaining the reliability and validity of certain methodologies (i.e. historical, statistical/mathematical, or scientific) or philosophical arguments.

    For you to say that ‘nobody has evidence that there is a god’ means (to someone who knows Christian apologetics and/or understands how science, mathematics, statistics, and philosophy have different methods of determining how one acquires knowledge) that you didn’t do your homework. Instead, you are just making an ignorant statement about something that you have no clue of what you are talking about.

  5. Nobody called you any names. You made an extremely arrogant and ignorant statement, and RWL is calling you out on it. Now, can you address any of his points?

  6. How did I engage you in a name-calling discussion? What ‘bad name’ or ‘calling you out of your name’ assertion did I make?

  7. essiep,

    I didn’t call you ignorant, but I did call your statement ‘nobody has evidence that there is a god’ ignorant. My 12 year-old daughter makes ignorant statements all the time (most of the 12 year olds that I have encountered do, but I didn’t say that she is ignorant. There’s a difference).

    As for your second or third reply, ‘What do you mean? That there is no evidence of a god? What’s ‘arrogant’ and ‘ignorant about that?’, you obviously didn’t read my first reply to you. Please reread my first reply to you.

  8. “Ignorant” because there is abundant evidence for God that you are apparently unaware of. Philosophers and theologians have been discussing it for hundreds and thousands of years. That anyone could be unaware of this is mind boggling.

    “Arrogant” because you think your unawareness of evidence means evidence doesn’t exist.

  9. Perhaps some of the problem here is our understanding of the word ‘ignorant’. Here, it means to to actively block out knowledge and stubbornly avoid learning. It is not a synonym of naive. Your daughter may well be naive, but I’d be very surprised if she were ignorant. So, a statement cannot be ignorant, only the person saying it can.

  10. essiep: ‘So, a statement cannot be ignorant, only the person saying it can.’

    Let’s look at the word ignorant and how it can be used:

    adjective

    1.

    lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned:
    an ignorant man.

    2.

    lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:
    ignorant of quantum physics.

    3.

    uninformed; unaware.

    4.

    due to or showing lack of knowledge or training:
    an ignorant statement.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ignorantly

    If you view this website, then you can see that the word ‘ignorant’ can be used as an adjective, verb, noun, and adverb.

    Feel free to discuss my first reply to you, as well.

  11. You supported your use of the word with (I) ‘have no clue what you’re talking about’

    Besides, are you opening the debate because you actually do know of evidence for a god?

  12. essiep: ‘sighs’ now you are discussing how ‘I’ supported my use of the word ignorant. It can be used as I just mentioned above: declaring your statement as ignorant.

    ‘Besides, are you…… ‘

    As a Christian, of course I am going to tell you that I do know evidence for God. However, as I mentioned earlier, it depends upon what criteria, methodology, ways of knowing (epistemology), etc. and/or definition and types of evidence that you use. For example, you may use the basic method of the 5 senses to obtain evidence, providing you with knowledge (a way of knowing). However is this the best method for uncovering or finding out about certain phenomena, entities, places, objects, etc? Can I use this method for finding out about everything in life? Probably not (as my graduate school stats professor informed us). But, as you probably know, this is not the only method of acquiring knowledge. You can use more astute forms of acquiring knowledge via philosophy, scientific methods, mathematics, statistics, etc. It all depends upon what method you are using to acquire knowledge for a specific item, phenomena, entity, person, etc.

    Has researched been conducted by scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, staticians, and even psychiatrists to provide us with knowledge that God exist? Yes!

    There is a book that I think you should purchase, Reasonable Faith, 2008 edition, by William Lane Craig. In his book, Dr. Craig covers everything that I just mentioned.

    I’m going to bed, I have to be up for church in 6 hours. God bless you, and I hope that you purchase this book (you can get a free preview of Dr. Craig’s book online at Amazon).

  13. essiep, enough with the argument over semantics.

    RWL has made some statements about evidence and given you a suggestion. Stick to addressing those.

  14. On the contrary, it is entirely civil to have rules in place to keep the conversation productive. Nobody is interested in your hurt feelz. If you cannot engage in fruitful conversation, you can go elsewhere.

    And let me put to rest once and for all the notion that Christians are under any obligation to be “nice” or that it is hypocritical to be direct and forceful. No doubt, based on experience, you expect Christians to present themselves as Ned Flanders-esque soft targets. But you will be increasingly disappointed as Christians come to realize that atheists are not principled, but merely: a) annoyed that you are getting back some of your own for once; and b) trying to divert attention from your inability to engage in substantial discussion.

    In any case, you’re done here for today. I will nuke any comments you try to post. If you decide you would like to address RWL’s statements about evidence, you can try again tomorrow.

Want to discuss this article? See 'Questions and Comments' for the rules.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s