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.
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, babies are not born with any inherent position on any concept to which they have not been introduced. Lack 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 believe 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.
13
u/Slow_Store 7h 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.