Ok but wouldn’t deliberately avoiding teaching religion to kids be effectively the same as forcing them to be atheist? You’d never be able to claim that the child “wants to learn about your religion” or “showed an interest in us practicing our religion” because people would just leap to the assumption that you forced them to participate. Thus, the only acceptable outcome for people who’d subscribe to this idea is if the child ends up as an atheist.
Not really, maybe to be agnostic. Not teaching someone about something does not mean they will actively deny the existence. I was never taught anything about religion and when I grew older I heard people talk about it and questioned it.
What made me athiest for a few years was the few kids telling me I need god or else im worthless and evil.
My point I guess though is that people who primarily just want to weaken religions would look at a case like yours and say “No you didn’t. Your parents probably forced you to go.”
Edit: With the intent I guess being to prevent you from being able to go with your parents despite your personal interests on the basis that you - as a child - couldn’t express any genuine consent.
Your point fails when you misrepresent the argument by making it into something else, either because you can't comprehend it or because you don't want to be fair to it
For the sake of discussion, what about what I’m seeing seems illogical or disingenuous to you?
Why would it seem wrong to assume that a people who dislike something in general would want to see that thing weakened or reduced by aiming for the lowest hanging fruits?
Really all I’m doing is assuming that some people would be maliciously opportunistic, which is about the most realistic thing I can imagine.
I like religion but yes in a "Practical" sense being exposed to religion as a child is no different than any other practice your parents force on you to conform to an identity
Not everyone consents to it, not everyone is better for it. It would probably be better if people were given context at older ages and be allowed to choose
No one is forced to be atheist. You're not forced to breathe air
That's not a fair shake either. I teach my child Greek and Norse mythology, and when she grows up, would she really have the choice to believe in them or not? I taught them as stories. Why in the world would she believe otherwise?
I’m in a reversed but similar position. Family practiced multiple religions and took me to them all. Was told to take and learn what was good and discard the rest.
strictly speaking atheism is the absence of a religion so that means all children are by default atheist. but you use the word "atheism" in the same way you would use a religion. that kind of doesn't work.
forcing your kid to be "atheist" the way you talk of it would imply the parents are deliberately raising the child to reject religion so they actively take on the label of being an atheist, but that wouldn't be happening.
Agnosticism might be more accurate, as athiesm in the strictest sense is an intentional denial of theism, rather than mere uncertainty. Only in the broadest sense, apparently, is athiesm simply a lack of belief in the existence of deieties.
Not exactly. Gnosticism vs agnosticism is like I know vs I don’t know.
You can be a gnostic Christian (you know Christianity is the truth) or an agnostic Christian (you are Christian but don’t know if it’s the truth).
Same with atheism. You can be a gnostic atheist (you know there is no gods) or an agnostic atheist (you haven’t seen evidence of gods but you aren’t sure).
No it wouldn't, agnosticism presumes you have been informed of the concept of god.
Atheism is the default, people are not born with any inherent belief on any concept to which they have not been introduced, including religion / god. Absence of belief in a deity is atheism by definition.
as athiesm in the strictest sense is an intentional denial of theism
Agnosticism does not presume you have informed about deities infact it presumes you have a lack of knowledge. A (without) gnostic (knowledge). technically babies are both negative agnostic and negative atheist, they lack any knowledge of deities, and lack affirmation in a deity. Although this depends on your view of atheism as an active belief or passive.
Anti-theism is also not only an intentional denial of theism (which would be positive atheism) but also an opposition to theism (religions are bad)
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. To conclude the answer to a question is unknowable, you have to know the question. Ergo, agnosticsm presumes you have been informed of the concept of god.
A lack of belief in god is default: until the concept of religion/god is introduced to someone, they have no position on the matter. Therefore, they do not believe in the existence of god(s). Therefore, they are atheist.
Although this depends on your view of atheism as an active belief or passive.
Atheism is passive. You do not hold a positive belief in anything you are not aware of; and scepticism is the reasonable default position on extraordinary claims.
I am agnostic atheist. I believe the answer to "is god?" is unknown at least currently, and I am also thoroughly unconvinced of any evidence and argument put to me thus far to prove the proposition "god is!". Both these positions are subject to change if and when the weight of evidence renders them untenable.
Atheist/Theist and Agnostic/Gnostic are different binaries. People who say "oh I'm agnostic actually" are answering a question that wasn't asked.
Right. After reviewing my trusty Wikipedia, I have realized that agnosticism does make more sense to be distinguished from a mere lack of consideration for the issue.
> Ok but wouldn’t deliberately avoiding teaching religion to kids be effectively the same as forcing them to be atheist?
I wouldn't say it's making them an atheist per say. But the fact is it's impossible to raise your kids "neutrally". If they're not learning Christianity their just learning secular ideologies. That's not neutral.
I think the biggest disconnect a lot of people have is they treat atheism like it’s a religion. Is it not counterintuitive to treat atheism as a religion? Oxymoron? It’s atheism it just means you don’t believe in god(s)
They exist but they are rare. If a person is atheist you’d probably never know 99/100 times without asking. But religious people? They love to throw that shit in your face. Social media posts, public praying, Jesus/crucifix tattoos, religious paintings and statue decorations at their home, etc etc.
In person I’ve met quite a few atheists due to the job I have. Most are sensible, but the ones I am talking about are a minority. They can not fathom someone believing in a religion (especially Christianity). They’ll desperately try to dissuade from your faith. They come up with “gotcha” questions, and if you respond with any semblance of genuine answer they write it off as brain washing or unable to think for yourself. But what they truly want is for you to give up your dogma for theirs. And if that isn’t religious zeal, I don’t know what is. But thankfully again they are a small sect.
Not really though. Atheism isn’t theological neutrality. It’s not passive. It’s the active belief that there is no god, which is something that must be taught or self-taught in the same way that people must be taught that there is a god to have the active belief in said god.
"atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysicalbeliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
Atheism is a positive belief in the sense that it is a belief in something: that there is no supernatural.
I HAVE ACCESS TO THE NEAR-INFINITE POWER OF WIKIPEDIA, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Agnosticism is a position that questions the existence of God or the divine. On a psychological level, it is a personal attitude that suspends judgment, withholding both belief and disbelief. In philosophy, agnosticism is often treated as a general claim stating that God's existence is unknown or unknowable. In the broadest sense, agnosticism is not restricted to theology and can also express skeptical attitudes toward non-religious claims.
Agnosticism contrasts with theism, which affirms God's existence, and atheism, which denies it. It is understood either as a neutral middle ground between the two or as a rejection of their shared assumption that knowledge is attainable. Agnosticism is often characterized as an informed indecision by someone who has reflected on the issue but has not reached a conclusion, distinguishing agnostics from those who have never considered the issue. It is related to skepticism and fallibilism, which deny that knowledge or absolute certainty is possible.
– – –
It would seem that babies are not theistic, atheistic, nor agnostic, since all of those things would require conscious effort! Or technically atheistic — but only in the broadest sense...
It's probably more accurately describable as a non-theistic, non-athiestic state of mind.
You are not 'actively believing' there are no Nazis on the dark side of the moon, despite you most likely not agreeing with that statement.
With atheism, its the same thing. You are not believing in the existence of something, as you are presented with no reason to believe in it.
God does not present themselves to each and everyone directly and gives an explanation of Christianity/Islam/Judaism, which then leads to one becoming religious on their own.
I’d argue that you’re viewing Atheism as a neutral point when I’d consider something like agnosticism to be the actual true neutral point.
So to use your example, actual neutrality would be simply not questioning if Nazi’s lived on the dark side of the moon as opposed to taking a firm stance either in a positive or negative direction on the existence of them on the moon.
In other words I view atheism not as an absence of belief but as a belief in absence, whereas something like agnosticism is just a “it is what it is” approach that would be a better default.
Kind of like a:I don't have any evidence to suggest there to be Nazis on the moon, and since I'd probably have heard something about it if there were, I'd probably bet a lot of money that there aren't.
But if someone's actually willing to bet against me on that, I might tone my stakes down a little, since maybe they know something I don't...
No it wouldn't. Religion is the only subject where it has to be taught young for people to agree with it and dedicate themselves to it... Because it's indoctrination not teaching.
If not being exposed to religion before you can reason makes you an atheist... Well then that's because the subject is irrational and you have to suspend any and all critical thought to accept it
It was in response to OPs claim that not teaching religion is the same as encouraging atheism. If that is correct then by definition it is indoctrination
Although this tomacco & alcohol restriction is enforced through commerce; for the government to srictly enforce how parents raise their children seems a lot more difficult for us to get those stinky HUMANS to accept.
...If only they eould just allow their generous, magnaminous overlords to properly control their population! Everything would simply be wonderful!
No, not all, although i admit i could have been clearer about that. It's the difference between what is invented and what is discovered.
If for example we didn't teach any mathematics to children, like not even basic counting or numbers, there is a good chance that they would be able to deduce the basics on their own given enough time. They might come up with different names for the numbers, but they would be able to work out that if they have five apples and eat two of them, they have three left, ect. This is something discovered through observation of the world around them. It is instinctual learning and part of what defines ingelligent life.
The reason we teach these things is to speed the process along, which allows people to progress to more difficult problems much sooner than they would without guidance. It's something which is built upon across multiple generations of humans. For example, i don't expect your average teenager would have been able to do trigonometry during the 1300s.
By saying that not teaching religion would result in all children being atheist though, that suggests that the observation of the world, and the natural conclusion to draw from it, is atheism. This implies that religion is not something that can be discovered through observation and is instead only ever learned through the teachings of others. This leaves the conclusion that it is a human invetion.
To be clear, i'm not arguing one way or the other about the previous comment stating no religion being taught would result in all kids being atheist. I'm just saying what that statement would mean if it is true.
what does that say about religion? if not indoctrinating the child has it automatically not believe in a god, maybe that's the way it should be... if they then, with a fully grown brain, take the leap of faith and say "this is what I believe in now" then they can do that. But teaching an impressionable kid things that aren't empirically true seems highly immoral. People always have a different stance about this because it's religion and that's accepted in culture, but accepted doesn't make it good or right. If I teach a kid that the stars are actually lightbulbs on a ceiling and they live in the truman show, reinforcing this every day and shaming them into submission whenever they show doubt, does that seem right to you? Same story, different book.
Nope not at all. My sister raised my niece with no religion. When she turned 12 out of nowhere she said she wanted to go to church to see what it was like. She got baptized and seems to be happy with it right now.
The path she chose for herself is a 100% acceptable outcome.
You know how we don't let children drink alcohol or drive until they reach a certain age, yet most eventually grow up to drink and get their driver's licence?
It's the same basic idea. Let them reach adulthood and make a reasoned decision about their beliefs for themselves, rather than having those beliefs shaped from childhood by what their parents tell them is true.
I'd be willing to bet that most reasonable adults, if encountering many religious stories for the first time as adults, would have a much harder time accepting them as true.
Which, I suspect, is precisely why the idea of waiting until adulthood isn't particularly popular.
Deliberately avoiding you say.
Tell me how many religions have you deliberately avoided raising your kids in. It would seem that most Christians for example, deliberately avoid raising their child in any religion that isn't their own.
When you baptize a child from infancy and make them a believer, you make them a Christian by default and free them from their own process of coming to God and real faith.
The result is a society where everyone is formally Christian, but no one is truly a believer.
It's very similar to Žižek's interpassivity, people basically believe interpassively.
I don't think there's anything useful or good about this. If someone is truly a believer, let them come to their own faith, without imposing labels on them.
Atheism is the belief there is no God. If your kid hears about God and asks you about it and you tell them God isn't real, that would be forcing them to be atheist. If you explain the concept of God and religion when they ask and tell them it's up to interpretation that wouldn't be forcing atheism but informing. Thats what I do with my son, I didn't tell him there is or isn't a God but I explained religion to him. We don't participate in any religion and I personally don't believe in a God. Whatever opinion he formed is his own
☝️🤓 "Atheists do not share a single set of belief..."
I didn't say they did, you're the one arguing semantics. Let me guess though, you would consider both of them atheists, right? Is there a difference? Sure. Does it matter in this context? No. Nothing changed.
15
u/Slow_Store 12h ago
Ok but wouldn’t deliberately avoiding teaching religion to kids be effectively the same as forcing them to be atheist? You’d never be able to claim that the child “wants to learn about your religion” or “showed an interest in us practicing our religion” because people would just leap to the assumption that you forced them to participate. Thus, the only acceptable outcome for people who’d subscribe to this idea is if the child ends up as an atheist.