@YARNLADY Very true, but in the large scheme of things, I don’t believe that that is relevant. Remaining cognizant of the basic working universe and the intricacies within is paramount over “god sucks”, in my opinion. Searching, researching and compiling evidence and knowledge is more important than some insubstantial title.
@johanna Not necessarily. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that everyone is introduced to some form of religion in their lives, save for some really, really rural areas (and those are irrelevant for all intents and purposes of this conversation).
Skepticism does not equate to questioning your indoctrinated belief system. It is questioning every ideology that comes into your life, be it Christianity, a political system, Atheism (which isn’t even a set of beliefs or an organized structure to begin with, but I digress), or whatever – including your indoctrinated belief system. However, saying that my distinction demands being exposed to religion is true, albeit in a limited sense:
If I were raised on the assumption there was no god, and that science is the tool of nature, then that’s fine. But at some point in my life, I’d have come across a religion.
I have two choices:
Either refuse to believe it and hear nothing about the opposing system, or look at what is being presented and ask questions. The latter is what I mean by “skepticism”. A true skeptic tries to make the argument presented fit into reality. If it does not, then it is discarded.
And why must the choice not to be religious be rebellion, even if one has been taught about all kinds of religions?
It is rebellion in the sense that a large majority of the population believes in one religion or another. By not adhering to social norms, you are, by definition, a rebel. That isn’t to say that you become a radical, however – and that’s an important distinction that leads into the next point.
By such logic all choices not believe in any kind of dogma are rebellious?
Yep, that’s what I’m trying to say. But again, I use the word “rebel” in a more literal, social sense – I’m intentionally trying to leave out any sort of mental associations adhered to it.
Can it just not be the absence of proof? And the absence of proof does not automatically mean skepticism.
The absence of proof requires skepticism, for questions to be asked and for the ideology to be disproven. So, again, saying that “I find no evidence to support this claim” yet doing no research even at elementary level, is blind rebellion.
sorry this took so long… damn kids. I hate Halloween