Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too

[talloola]

I don’t think I agree with that. There are exceptions obviously, but I think most Atheists are quite knowledgeable about different world religion. Indeed, that is ho w most of them become atheists, very few are born into Atheism (perhaps the proportion may be higher in the next generation).

Most Atheists have studied at least major world religions in some detail, come to the conclusion that none of them represent the truth (although they all claim to represent the truth) and so became Atheists.

But I think many of them tend to be very knowledgeable about religion.

we're talking about school kids here right!!!!those who don't believe in god at that time of their lives
haven't had the time to figure a lot of it out, they will in time.

 

[karrie]

I stand by my oringinal feelings even after leaving my 'argument' silent to just listen for a while. Government should teach culture, it should teach political impact, it should teach the names of the religions, and acceptance of difference. But it doesn't need to get into the structure or beliefs of the religion in elementary school, imo., and any course touching on the mythological aspects ought to be by choice, not mandated.

 

[Scott Free]

From what I have seen on this forum, atheists are, without any doubt... the greatest experts on every single topic.

It's about time someone bloody noticed!


MODS!!!!!!!

Give this man a prize! ccasion9:

 

[Cliffy]

Where do the Satanists stand in the rankings?

They are just another religion, no better or worse than any other. Like the saying goes, Satan's greatest accomplishment was to convince people he was god.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Where do the Satanists stand in the rankings?

Satanists rank slightly above Atheists, there is a special kind of Hell reserved only for Atheists.

we're talking about school kids here right!!!!those who don't believe in god at that time of their lives
haven't had the time to figure a lot of it out, they will in time.

A school kid would be an Atheist mainly if his/her parents are Atheists. At that age, they adopt the parents' religion (or lack of it). But then as I said before, very few kids are born into Atheism.

 

[petros]

Satanists rank slightly above Atheists, there is a special kind of Hell reserved only for Atheists.



A school kid would be an Atheist mainly if his/her parents are Atheists. At that age, they adopt the parents' religion (or lack of it). But then as I said before, very few kids are born into Atheism.

We never pushed religion on our daughter only spirituality. She found what she was looking for and last week she graduated from a private Christian school.

 

[AnnaG]

From what I have seen on this forum, atheists are, without any doubt, (or at least claim to be) the greatest experts on every single topic. To their minds, anyone who disagrees with them on any subject, is nothing but a redneck, extremist fool.

If the shoe fits. lol

Where do the Satanists stand in the rankings?

And agnostics?

we're talking about school kids here right!!!!those who don't believe in god at that time of their lives
haven't had the time to figure a lot of it out, they will in time.

You aren't supposed to bring up things that he hadn't noticed. Now he's got to post reams and reams justifying why he thought schoolkids have experienced and thought as much about religions and atheism as adults have.

I stand by my oringinal feelings even after leaving my 'argument' silent to just listen for a while. Government should teach culture, it should teach political impact, it should teach the names of the religions, and acceptance of difference. But it doesn't need to get into the structure or beliefs of the religion in elementary school, imo., and any course touching on the mythological aspects ought to be by choice, not mandated.

Well, parents seem to spring religion on kids since day one (Mum's don't leave baby home while they go to church), so the earlier kids find out there are alternatives, the better, I think.
I think it's quite possible that if kids are aware of how much stuff is available , education- and career-wise, the easier it might be for them to choose what they like out of it.

Satanists rank slightly above Atheists, there is a special kind of Hell reserved only for Atheists.



A school kid would be an Atheist mainly if his/her parents are Atheists. At that age, they adopt the parents' religion (or lack of it). But then as I said before, very few kids are born into Atheism.

I don't believe you. You have statistics?

 

[petros]

Agnostic just means you aren't a gnostic. You have no knowledge of religion but still have spirituality.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We never pushed religion on our daughter only spirituality. She found what she was looking for and last week she graduated from a private Christian school.

Maybe you didn't. But at that age, kids usually adopt the religious beliefs of their parents, Any deviation from that comes later.

 

[AnnaG]

Agnostic just means you aren't a gnostic. You have no knowledge of religion but still have spirituality.

roflmao You're hilarious sometimes, Pet.

 

[petros]

roflmao You're hilarious sometimes, Pet.

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint[1] or mystically enlightened human being. Within the cultures of the term's provenance (Byzantine and Hellenic) Gnosis was a knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine and uncreated in all and above all,[2] rather than knowledge strictly into the finite, natural or material world which is called epistemological knowledge.[3] Gnosis is a transcendental as well as mature understanding.[4] It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking. Gnosis itself is obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany of intuition and external epiphany such as the Theophany.

Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that the cosmos was created by an imperfect god, the demiurge with some of the supreme God's pneuma; this being is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God, (as opposed to the Gospel according to the Hebrews) and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including Pleroma and Godhead.[1] Depictions of the demiurge—the term originates with Plato's Timaeus[2]—vary from being as an embodiment of evil, to being merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. Gnosticism was a dualistic religion, influenced by and influencing Hellenic philosophy, Judaism (see Notzrim), and Christianity;[3] however, by contrast, later strands of the movement, such as the Valentinians, held a monistic world-view.[4] This, along with the varying treatments of the demiurge, may be seen as indicative of the variety of positions held within the category.
The gnōsis referred to in the term is a form of mystic, revealed, esoteric knowledge through which the spiritual elements of humanity are reminded of their true origins within the superior Godhead, being thus permitted to escape materiality.[5] Consequently, within the sects of gnosticism only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnōsis; the hylic or Somatics, though human, being incapable of perceiving the higher reality, are unlikely to attain the gnōsis deemed by gnostic movements as necessary for salvation.[6][7] Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth.[8] In others (e.g. the Notzrim and Mandaeans) he is considered a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.[9] Still other traditions identify Mani and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures.[10]

agnosis
Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), “‘without”, “lacking’”) + γνὣσις (gnōsis), “‘knowledge’”) ≅ ignorance

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

There is nothing funny about the meaning and origin of words.

 

[CDNBear]

There is nothing funny about the meaning and origin of words.

Nor is there anything funny about purposefully ignoring the contemporary definition and common usage. ;-)

 

[petros]

I posted the current meaning and I'll quote from it.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

 

[CDNBear]

I posted the current meaning and I'll quote from it.

This seems to be saying Agnostics have no knowledge of religion, and therefore ignorant.

Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), “‘without”, “lacking’”) + γνὣσις (gnōsis), “‘knowledge’”) ≅ ignorance

Merriam Webster's definition.

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

If I misread you, my apologies.

 

[AnnaG]

There is nothing funny about the meaning and origin of words.

Your misuse of them is hilarious, though. What you said is that I have no knowledge of religions. That's straight crap. I was born into Catholicism and native paganism, I have studied a little Buddhism, Hinduism, quite a few pagan religions, Taoism, etc.

This seems to be saying Agnostics have no knowledge of religion, and therefore ignorant.



Merriam Webster's definition.



If I misread you, my apologies.

There's a difference between knowing saints, gods, etc. and knowing religions. And what Pet said was, "You have no knowledge of religion".

 

[CDNBear]

There's a difference between knowing saints, gods, etc. and knowing religions.

I agree.

And what Pet said was, "You have no knowledge of religion".

That's what I thought too.

 

[AnnaG]

But, I do agree that agnostics do not have spiritual knowledge of gods. Agnostics tend to think humans cannot possibly know about gods simply because of the nature of gods being all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing, invisible, etc.

 

[TenPenny]

Your misuse of them is hilarious, though. What you said is that I have no knowledge of religions.

If one bothered to read the post in question, one would come to the conclusion that the use of 'you' in that sentence was not specific to any particular person, but was the general 'you', which is what 'one' used to be used for.
In the United States, one sometimes has a literary or highfalutin feel to it; the more it is used, the more pretentious it feels. In British English, the use of the impersonal or generic one is more commonplace and has no such stigma. In the U.S., one is often replaced by you.
If one wants to take every post personaly, that's their option. But one would do well to remember, 'It's not always about YOU'.

 

[AnnaG]

If one bothered to read the post in question, one would come to the conclusion that the use of 'you' in that sentence was not specific to any particular person, but was the general 'you', which is what 'one' used to be used for.
In the United States, one sometimes has a literary or highfalutin feel to it; the more it is used, the more pretentious it feels. In British English, the use of the impersonal or generic one is more commonplace and has no such stigma. In the U.S., one is often replaced by you.
If one wants to take every post personaly, that's their option. But one would do well to remember, 'It's not always about YOU'.

:roll: He was referring to agnostics. I'm an agnostic. If he had not intended to mean me, he should have said agnostics have no knowledge of religions EXCEPT ANNA.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

:roll: He was referring to agnostics. I'm an agnostic. If he had not intended to mean me, he should have said agnostics have no knowledge of religions EXCEPT ANNA.

I wouldn’t say agnostics have no knowledge of religion; some of them may be quite knowledgeable. My take on it is that agnostics are confused, they don’t know whether God exists or not, the evidence is inconclusive either way, in their opinion.

Atheists take it one step further. I argue that there is no need to prove that God doesn’t exist, that has to be the default position. If somebody says that God exists, it is up to them to put forward the evidence, and so far I haven’t seen any evidence to support God’s existence.

So I don’t know with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist (nobody can know it with 100 % certainty), but in my opinion, the evidence for existence for God is so minuscule, so sparse, that it is negligible, and can safely be neglected.