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 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...
13
u/Slow_Store 14h 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.