Celebs Who are Atheists

[formergothardite]

My kids get enough exposure to religion through just regular life, I don't need to drag them to church for that. When my kids are teens, if they would like to go to a church that treats women as equals to men, is pro-choice and doesn't teach that being gay is a sin, then I would support that. If they want to go to any other sort of church, they can wait till they are an adult. But I'm hoping I won't raise kids that would want to support that sort of a church.

[Megan]

What I meant by that is that the degree of proof threshold varies to atheist to atheist. Dawkins discusses it and I found the following online: A strong atheist believes that they have proof that there is no God and does not believe in one.

An agnostic atheist believes that there is not enough proof on either side, but chooses not to believe until proven wrong.

An agnostic religious person believes that there is not enough proof on either side, but chooses that they do believe until proven wrong.

A strong religious person believes that they have proof that there is a God and believes in it.

The above explains it better than I probably would.

While I find Dawkins so problematic in many ways (the elevator thing...), his discussion on this was interesting. From my memory:

Basically, someone's religious makeup can be discussed on two variables: Theism (atheism or theism) and gnosticism (agnostic or gnostic). I'm an agnostic atheist (I don't believe in God but don't believe there is any sure way of determining the existence or lack thereof of a deity). Most "atheists" likely fit under this category, but with varying levels of (a)gnosticism. Most theists are gnostics - they believe there is evidence for God, particularly their definition of God. People called "agnostics" are often agnostic theists (believe in a deity but don't believe there is proof of God OR evidence supporting a particular religious affiliation).

This is obviously separate from the historic Gnostics.

[Vex]

The idea that you're making your child a "fundamentalist" atheist by NOT exposing them to religion is ridiculous.

First off, if you're only taking them to YOUR church, all you're doing is giving them a choice between one brand of Christianity and Atheism (by your logic).

I find it hypocritical to only be showing them one brand of religion under the guise of giving them a 'choice', because they are not going to absolutely be atheists by default if you don't teach them a religion (there is PLENTY of exposure to Christian ideas out there, most people I know who are raised without a specific religion are agnostic, rather than atheists), so you're really giving them an extremely biased view of religion and while pretending you want to give them a choice. You're not saying 'this is what I believe, come to church with me a few times, and then if it's not for you, let's learn about different religions together and try something that you find interesting'. If you really want them to try things to see what works for them, you have to expose them to different religions or it's just farcical.

There's also nothing wrong with saying 'I would like for my children to be Christian like me and I want them to go to church with me, but if they later decide they don't want to be Christian, I will be okay with that'. Just own it if that's your viewpoint.

If I have kids, I will not be taking them to church but I probably will send them to private schools, which (in my country, anyway) are usually attached to a religion. As I am currently minoring in religion I feel I will be able to give them sound information on a number of different religions as well as letting them know it's okay not to believe in anything specific or anything at all. I am an atheist and I admittedly do not like or trust organised religion, but I don't force my views on other people.

I also don't understand how someone can be a 'fundamentalist' or 'militant' Atheist. I think people confuse Atheism with existentialism, especially nihilistic existentialism a LOT.