Is Atheism a Neurological disorder? Possible prenatal test

[Dumb Ideologies]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

[USS Monitor]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

They ruled it not trolling for some reason.

[Wallenburg]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

They ruled it not trolling for some reason.

That implies there is reason behind the ruling.

[The Imperium Empires]

This is blatantly offensive and trolling. How come this is still open.

[Socialist Tera]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

It's probably accidentally trolling. Mods probably think it is serious and are eating popcorn while reading the responses.

[USS Monitor]

They ruled it not trolling for some reason.

That implies there is reason behind the ruling.

I assume mods have reasons for doing what they do, even when it's not what I would do.

[Wallenburg]

That implies there is reason behind the ruling.

I assume mods have reasons for doing what they do, even when it's not what I would do.

Hehe. You would think so.

[Hirota]

I've already said this was one of the stupider posts in NS in recent history, but then I didn't quite have the time to explain precisely why this is that stupid

This may seem like a provocative title, however in context I feel there is a reasonable amount of evidence to make this hypothesis.

We will get to your "evidence" (or utter lack therof) in due course.

"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population"
source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Nothing unreasonable here. I'd argue it fails to recognise the nuance and variations between the various flavours of atheism, but there is nothing outright stupid here.

When we look at how the vast majority of the world's population adhere to some kind of theistic Religion, whether monotheistic, polytheistic or henotheistic. It seems like they're is something fundamental to our neurological wiring, that causes us to seek a God(ess) or God(esses). Something fundamental that causes us to comprehend the idea of a being greater than our selves, something that surpasses this physical Earthly realm...

Just because lots of people think it is true does not make it true. Historically religion was used as a quick easy answer to resolving lifes biggest questions - when you can't explain the creation of the universe, the idea of a bearded guy in the sky is as plausible as any other. But typically atheists look at that explaination, see it doesn't fit the known evidence, and question the explaination. That doesn't mean they lack comprehension, but rather they are rational enough to evaluation that assertion.

When we look at the correlation between Pervasive Developmental Disorder's and Atheism,

Correlation does not imply causation.Plenty of things appear to have a correlation, but it's relatively obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that they are not linked in anyway whatsoever. The burden is absolutely upon you to demonstrate that there is a link between the two, otherwise this is nothing more that a crappy attempt at pseudoscience. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that so far.

could it be that there is a fundamental defect in the brain wiring of an Atheist that causes them to be unable to comprehend the idea of a being greater than them selves? The very nature of a supernatural entity is an abstract concept that would be very dependent, and sensitive to the condition of one's brain wiring.

No. Because whilst it might be true that most sufferers of autism are atheists, mosts atheists are not autistic. Most atheists are logical individuals who were previously theists at one point or another.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OMRhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Atheism+developmental+disorder&source=bl&ots=XoAemQS71E&sig=z0yEwSP6jgAGwC45Zwvq5KUGLss&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnrJvP-arMAhWIWywKHRKVDDUQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Atheism%20developmental%20disorder&f=false

This book fails to apply any sort of scientific method. It's pseudoscience bullshit. If your argument is predecated on such bullshit, then it is probably not much better.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

From the same article:

He and his collaborators point out that mentalizing deficits are of course not the only path to atheism. There are also cultural and educational influences—exposure to other skeptics, say—and cognitive style—some people are more likely to use rationality to second-guess superstition.

The people behind the study itself admit that autism is not the only path for atheism. YOUR OWN SOURCE PROVES YOUR CLAIM IS A LIE.

And if so, would it be possible that in future we may see a prenatal test for Atheism?

Well, provided that this test measured for intelligence I guess it's possible. This study shown that intelligent people are more likely to be atheists. Given the stupidity of the claims made in the OP by an apparently religious poster, I'd say that does appear to make sense.

And if so would you support it? I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate. Calvinism, and predestination spring to mind...

For someone who thinks abortion is murder, this section makes you appear at best, a completely hypocritical so-and-so. Most likely you are someone intellectually incapable of processing your cognitive bias. If you are blissful in your idiocy, then good for you, I guess.

But what do, YOU think NSG?

This is one of the stupidist posts I've ever seen, and it reflects upon you and your inability to make rational and intelligent decisions. It fails to live up to the claims made in the first paragraph - there is no evidence, there is no credible hypothesis. It's pseudoscience junk.

[Grinning Dragon]

This is blatantly offensive and trolling. How come this is still open.

Really? I guess I don't find it at all offensive or it's just me that I don't give a shit to begin with. Sure the whole idea of such an OP is off the wall bat shit nonsense, but offensive or trolling is one thing I don't find it either, more of a MEH, whatever dude.

[Platypus Reborn]

This is blatantly offensive and trolling. How come this is still open.

Really? I guess I don't find it at all offensive or it's just me that I don't give a shit to begin with. Sure the whole idea of such an OP is off the wall bat shit nonsense, but offensive or trolling is one thing I don't find it either, more of a MEH, whatever dude.

Yea, I think OP is off his meds for his neurological disorder.

[Wallenburg]

Really? I guess I don't find it at all offensive or it's just me that I don't give a shit to begin with. Sure the whole idea of such an OP is off the wall bat shit nonsense, but offensive or trolling is one thing I don't find it either, more of a MEH, whatever dude.

Yea, I think OP is off his meds for his neurological disorder.

That really isn't necessary...

[Ad Nihilo]

Yea, I think OP is off his meds for his neurological disorder.

That really isn't necessary...

Oh why not?

Since the mods have decided that the levels of flaming tolerated in this thread will be much higher than anywhere else, might as well roll with it while it lasts. I know for myself I have in the past received temporary bans for things I've posted that were much less offensive than stuff I've said in this thread.

[Dumb Ideologies]

That really isn't necessary...

Oh why not?

Since the mods have decided that the levels of flaming tolerated in this thread will be much higher than anywhere else, might as well roll with it while it lasts. I know for myself I have in the past received temporary bans for things I've posted that were much less offensive than stuff I've said in this thread.

Oprah.gif

You got a neurological disorder. He got a neurological disorder. EVERYONE GOT A NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER!!!

[Cumberlanda]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

Your name fits perfectly with this thread, as well as most of the threads on NSG.

[Hirota]

Eh, if this was 4chan and the moderators spontaneously lost their ability to moderate, that would be an excuse to post anthros rather than question posters cognitive abilities.

[Ifreann]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

No moderation without representation!
*dumps tea into F7*

[Veceria]

Eh, if this was 4chan and the moderators spontaneously lost their ability to moderate, that would be an excuse to post anthros rather than question posters cognitive abilities.

But that would lead to naked bananas or spiderman, and we really don't want to go down that line ...

[Alvecia]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

No moderation without representation!
*dumps tea into F7*

The NationStates General War of Independence.

I'm game.

[Talvezout]

For the sake of semblance of a discussion, what are we going to do if atheism does turn out to be, through some weird decision by the heavens, to be a neurological disorder?

Also OP, you're not being persecuted. Go tell the people suffering in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, go tell them that you're persecuted.

[Jetan]

Still open? Are the mods on strike?

No moderation without representation!
*dumps tea into F7*

Bloody colonial.

[Alaizia]

It would seem that I haven't done the job of communicating the fundamental position that motivates my arguments.

Jesus's philosophy defers justice and the concern for justice out of people's actual lives and onto things beyond life. It is not for you or me to fix the world. It is for God. All that there is for us to do is to fix our conscience before God.

My issue is not with having a good conscience. Very much the opposite. It is about how one goes about having a good conscience. The God of Jesus and the entire millenarian spiel enables you to clean up your conscience on the cheap: mean well, do the random act of kindness, try not to fight back when you perceive you have been slighted, and you're good to go. Or even better, just pray for forgiveness, and pray that everything will be better next time. I believe, and I think you do too, that such an approach is at best useless, and at worst very much counterproductive. It mollifies the often necessary fire of moral indignation that motivates the fight for social justice.

If I can paint a picture: Jesus would give the shirt off his back to a poor beggar. He would not stop to ask why that person was poor and whether there is something about our social arrangements that put that person in the position of being poor. Or whether there is some something we could do to fix those social arrangements. All Jesus has to offer is: "dude, it's all good, suffer in this life and you will be rewarded in the next."

Which is all very well except for the fact that in the next life you are food for worms. And even if there were an afterlife where God rewards/punishes you, there is still no excuse to be so indolent. With Jesus you are responsible for your own "salvation". With any sane system of morality (e.g. Confucianism) you are responsible for the well-being of your fellow man - not just to make sure that they are warm, and have somewhere to sleep, but to make sure that they never have to beg to be warm and have somewhere to sleep.

Historical Jesus has a lot of portraits about him ranging from eschatological prophet advocate, to a gifted healer, to a moral philosopher, or to a social reformer (having female disciples for example).

He did attack (quiet literally) against the source that cause mischiefs to the poor, the rich and privileged. For instance, have you forgotten about the "Cleansing of the Temple" incident where he lashed against the merchants inside the temple? Now, I don't know about you, but if I had a bunch of money-hungry dudes inside what I consider to be a holy and spiritual place, I'd be pretty pissed too. However, that particular story also contains a religious motivation behind Jesus' act. And that's where the thing is.

The mix of Jesus the man with the religion of Christianity is what sucks for the reasons you stated above. Christianity, in particular, is a boring religion with its holy books full of plot-holes. For example, the existance of an ideal Afterlife makes you wonder what the hell (sic) are we still doing here and what is big G waiting and keeps us struggling all this time in the mud. As I said, MAJOR plot-holes.
But my point is that there are some things in Jesus' teachings and way of life that were no doubt revolutionary for his time. Everyone gets equal treatment, "love thy neighbor" etc. I don't know about you, but it reminds me about Communism (minus the hocus-pocus of cource). In other words, I think that the specific tenets of that religion is what screws up Jesus' complete work in our eyes.
And to follow your example, imagine someone with the personality of Confucius teaching about Christianity instead of his other teachings. What would be our opinion about this man in that case? (not to say that Confucius was a saint of cource)

Finally, I wouldn't be so absolute about what we truely become after we pass away. Now that absolute thinking reminds me of religious dogmas. In my opinion, an open-minded person always acknowledges that there's a chance of being wrong. We might not have sufficient evidence to support that we become something else other that worm-food when we die, but we cannot be 100 percent sure either in our theories. Especially when there so many things we haven't investigated properly yet and we only speculate about.

[Ceterius]

I've already said this was one of the stupider posts in NS in recent history, but then I didn't quite have the time to explain precisely why this is that stupid

This may seem like a provocative title, however in context I feel there is a reasonable amount of evidence to make this hypothesis.

We will get to your "evidence" (or utter lack therof) in due course.

"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population"
source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Nothing unreasonable here. I'd argue it fails to recognise the nuance and variations between the various flavours of atheism, but there is nothing outright stupid here.

When we look at how the vast majority of the world's population adhere to some kind of theistic Religion, whether monotheistic, polytheistic or henotheistic. It seems like they're is something fundamental to our neurological wiring, that causes us to seek a God(ess) or God(esses). Something fundamental that causes us to comprehend the idea of a being greater than our selves, something that surpasses this physical Earthly realm...

Just because lots of people think it is true does not make it true. Historically religion was used as a quick easy answer to resolving lifes biggest questions - when you can't explain the creation of the universe, the idea of a bearded guy in the sky is as plausible as any other. But typically atheists look at that explaination, see it doesn't fit the known evidence, and question the explaination. That doesn't mean they lack comprehension, but rather they are rational enough to evaluation that assertion.

When we look at the correlation between Pervasive Developmental Disorder's and Atheism,

Correlation does not imply causation.Plenty of things appear to have a correlation, but it's relatively obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that they are not linked in anyway whatsoever. The burden is absolutely upon you to demonstrate that there is a link between the two, otherwise this is nothing more that a crappy attempt at pseudoscience. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that so far.

could it be that there is a fundamental defect in the brain wiring of an Atheist that causes them to be unable to comprehend the idea of a being greater than them selves? The very nature of a supernatural entity is an abstract concept that would be very dependent, and sensitive to the condition of one's brain wiring.

No. Because whilst it might be true that most sufferers of autism are atheists, mosts atheists are not autistic. Most atheists are logical individuals who were previously theists at one point or another.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OMRhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Atheism+developmental+disorder&source=bl&ots=XoAemQS71E&sig=z0yEwSP6jgAGwC45Zwvq5KUGLss&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnrJvP-arMAhWIWywKHRKVDDUQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Atheism%20developmental%20disorder&f=false

This book fails to apply any sort of scientific method. It's pseudoscience bullshit. If your argument is predecated on such bullshit, then it is probably not much better.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

From the same article:

He and his collaborators point out that mentalizing deficits are of course not the only path to atheism. There are also cultural and educational influences—exposure to other skeptics, say—and cognitive style—some people are more likely to use rationality to second-guess superstition.

The people behind the study itself admit that autism is not the only path for atheism. YOUR OWN SOURCE PROVES YOUR CLAIM IS A LIE.

And if so, would it be possible that in future we may see a prenatal test for Atheism?

Well, provided that this test measured for intelligence I guess it's possible. This study shown that intelligent people are more likely to be atheists. Given the stupidity of the claims made in the OP by an apparently religious poster, I'd say that does appear to make sense.

And if so would you support it? I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate. Calvinism, and predestination spring to mind...

For someone who thinks abortion is murder, this section makes you appear at best, a completely hypocritical so-and-so. Most likely you are someone intellectually incapable of processing your cognitive bias. If you are blissful in your idiocy, then good for you, I guess.

But what do, YOU think NSG?

This is one of the stupidist posts I've ever seen, and it reflects upon you and your inability to make rational and intelligent decisions. It fails to live up to the claims made in the first paragraph - there is no evidence, there is no credible hypothesis. It's pseudoscience junk.

Bravo.

[Bhut Jolok]

This post is really still here?

[Arvenia]

This post is really still here?

Japp (yeah)!

[New Larthinia]

This thread is a big joke. Why are people still giving it attention?