Autism and Atheism? What's the connection?

Post Reply New Topic

So,

I have long heard that autism has some sort of connection to atheism, at least in so far as that an autistic individual has a higher chance of being an atheist than a neurotypical.

I myself am an Atheist. Even though starting as a young child I attended a catholic school, I never bought it, and during older grades and through high school, I learnt what atheism was (after being told that I was an atheist) and began to notice the negative impacts of religion on society, politics, and even terrorist groups and wars, etc.

I wonder, what were your experiences with religion, and are you an atheist, were you always more skeptically minded? What do you think the connection could be?

I grew up attending religious schools.
Becoming an atheist was a gradual process and involved a lot of personal experiences, reading about others’ experiences, learning the history of religions and how they evolved, and finally gaining the strength to believe in myself and trusting to logic.

If those on the autism spectrum are in fact less likely to be a part of any religion, then I would attribute this to a tendency to rely more heavily on logic and facts than simply accepting what someone tells us.

I recall reading something - maybe it was Oliver Sachs but not sure , that noted that those on the spectrum were more likely to detect the lies of politicians than neurotypicals.

Religion is all based on lies if you ask me.

I grew up with very deep, philosophical thoughts so I always believed in God as a force of energy.
I find Atheism cold and frightening.
If this is all the universe is about, I don't want any part of it.

There is none.  Not all autists are atheists, and not all atheists are autists.

I became an atheist from as soon as I started thinking indipendently, at the age of thirteen. Lately though, in a very gradual manner I began believing in God again in a my own way. You could describe it as Deism, the way Thomas Pain Believed in God. I found atheism too immature and clinical.

What do you mean immature and clinical? If there's no evidence for something, rationally one should not accept it. I think what is really immature is making excuse for believing in things without evidence, especially when one is an adult.

If there are things in this world that are dear to you and are at risk of fading away, if you think about those things and connect them to the universe, and if you thing that this whole thing has a meaning, then how can you not think of God? At least in a metaphorical way.

Scientists have proven that matter is an illusion, and there are forms of energy we don't understand.
We are from the world but not of it.

None of this has anything to do with church and organized religion.
It's applied metaphysics.

Have they discovered evidence of a supernatural god or goddess like being, or multiple? All Atheism is is lack of belief in god(s).

Also, I don't think any scientist when speaking strictly about science (and not personal view/belief) would say "we are of this world, but not of it". We are literally animals like all other species, that was proven a long time ago.

Also, many of those scientists that specialize in things like psychics, quantum physics, who work at CERN, are themselves atheists (the vast majority even).

Lay people often don't know the full story, know all the details, or have a proper understanding.

Last edited by Canadian1911 on 22 Jan 2023, 4:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Not to be rude, but that just sounds like a whole bunch of mental masturbation and wish fulfillment. Where is the evidence?

Who is the lay person in your opinion?
Evidence of a God / god depends on how God / god is defined or redefined.
They've proven that indeed, God or something similar seems to exist.

You can believe whatever you want.
I'm not here to debate.
It's important for people to honour their own belief system without judging others.

My favorite one is St Augustine's proof for existence of God - it's entirely logically valid, only everything holds perfectly if you substitute "God" for "Mathematics" in the whole reasoning.
So, if we are happy with a "God" whose all qualities are basically the qualities of Mathematics, we have a proof of existence of... Mathematics renamed to God

Personally, I'm true agnostic, which means I'm entirely happy with "I don't know, I have no tools to know, maybe no simple and true answer exists at all" as an answer. It turns out, surprisingly a lot holds pretty solid with Big Questions left open.

I think God / god is the sum force of all physics.
It may or may not be sentient but it seems to be, given that much energy.
I could be totally wrong and that's fine.
I just think life is a lot more interesting with the possibility of infinite energy.
I don't need a man on a throne in the sky, but proof of metaphysics and the power of thought.

Just like a living cell is more than a sum of its molecules
And a living human is more than a sum of their cells
There may be more than a simple sum of things in this universe.
We may call this God.

Well, that is rude my friend.

The universe has no meaning other than what humans attach to it.  The things that are dear to us are attached to the universe in the same way that potato crisps are attached to the bag that contains them.  There is no valid empirical proof for the existence of God, and mere belief is not evidence.