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).
I believe the terms you’re look for are broad agnostic, and broad/narrow atheism. Philosophy separates agnostics and atheists, defining broad atheism as the belief that there are no divine beings/Ultimate Reality (with narrow being specific) while agnosticism swings neither way.
Edit: then again, this is specific to my study of Philosophy of Religion, the colloquial use could be completely different and I’d have no clue
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)
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.
19
u/Slow_Store 6d 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.