This month's issue of Psychology Today has an interesting piece that reminded me of everybody's dear friend, Vox Day. He asserts in his blog and his book on many occasions that atheists are more likely to suffer from what he terms "social autism"--disorders such as Asperger's Syndrome or mild forms of autism. He bases this on informal internet surveys that questioned people on their personality traits. But is the correlation really there, or is this just another attempt to disparage atheists?

"It's All Geek to Me" by Benjamin Nugent discusses the difference between the systematizing brains of so-called "nerds" and the empathic brains of the more socially inclined. Although nerds, the "intellectually gifted but socially awkward" (p.39), do share some traits of those with ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) but not to a severe enough degree to be classified as a pathology. In fact, the behavior can be brought on solely by parenting style according to Dr. Mel Levine, and the socially inept can be taught the skills necessary for more intuitive social interactions. This is where nerdiness differs from ASD. ASD is persistent despite attempts at socialization.

i doubt cutting out tithing comes up in these financial management seminars at the church...

source

I didn't realize I had a blog here.  I have a fairly regular one on MySpace (six or seven posts a year).

I guess I need to post something occasionally.

Thandarr

Written by Joel

THE WORLD IS GOING TO END DECEMEBER 21, 2012!!

In a recent study, researchers have found that people with higher concentrations of serotonin receptors were more likely to be religious or the nebulous "spiritual." This is interesting because it would explain the connection between transcendent experiences and the use of psychotropic drugs and also the inverse correlation between religiosity and depression. Check it out for yourself:

The problem of evil arises when one attempts to reconcile the existence evil with the existence of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent deity.  The existence of evil indicates one of two alternatives.  If suffering exists God either can’t prevent it, and may therefore be benevolent but not omnipotent, or won’t prevent it, and may therefore be omnipotent but not benevolent.  A third alternative does exist, as well, which is that God may be neither omnipotent nor benevolent.  Several attempts have been made to reconcile the two and provide a solution to the problem of evil and, while generally consistent, I find most of them to be unsatisfactory because they make unjustified assumptions about the objectivity of evil and the anthropomorphic nature of God.  
Evil can be divided into two subcategories; they are natural evil and moral evil.  Natural evil suffering brought about by natural phenomena, whilst moral evil is human suffering brought about by the will of other willful entities (1).  Evil, in the context of this discussion, almost always refers to something that results in suffering.  Any process whereby suffering imposed can be said to be evil.  Moral evils consist of circumstances where, through action or inaction, one human being allows suffering to be imposed upon another.  Natural evils consist of circumstances where, through action or inaction, and God allows suffering to be imposed.  

Bankruptcy

So here is another post in my series on personal finance.

A brief recap (and to my non-myspace readers, this is the first time you're hearing this) I will be writing about personal finance, my own life, and science in that order each blog.

At least until I flake out on that plan.

But I plan on doing it this way for a while.

I have become obsessed with my personal finance, I love writing autobiographically, and I also want to write more about science (since that is what I've been working on doing for a living for the last 3.5 years).

But this is one on finance for the cycle.

Why bankruptcy?

Well, its because I'm writing from where I am.

I would love to write about Roth IRAs and 401Ks and mutual funds and money market accounts, but those are concerns for people who have money.

Allow me to emphasize now, just so no one misunderstands, the point is to get to a position where Roth IRAs, 401Ks , mutual funds, etc. are my primary concern because I have become so good at saving money that the time has come to invest it.

The teleological argument is an inductive means reaching the conclusion that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity. Essentially, if were to find a complicated machine in the middle of nowhere, we would not suppose it were there by chance or by whim of nature. Rather, we would suppose that the complexity and form, and perhaps function it is apparent, inferred that it was created by an intelligent being. In the same sense, though, we find that complexity of equal and greater magnitude, and form far more impressive, is readily observable in the universe. The complexity of any human made machine pales in comparison to the complexity of the biological machinery of a single bacterium. So complex is nature that even today it never ceases to surprise us and evade our predictive and descriptive capacities.

Now the process of induction begins by claiming that like effects warrant the assumption of like causes. Within the complexity of every single human creation, we find evidence of intelligent human design. Thusly, in other incidences of complexity and form for which no designer is known, the only logical and consistent conclusion is that it was intelligently designed.

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I'm an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm....*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All Times^TM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I've got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

Just had to post this so that everybody knows that I am not finished with chapter 4, nor did I saw I was. I found that there was enough material to cut it into 2 posts, and not wanting to make it too long, decided to dissect the foundation of chapter 4--the immorality of atheists, or lack of definable morality--before delving into the specifics.

Geez Vox, you shouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions.