My personal definition of atheism is pretty loose, but there are fellow Christian brethren out there who do not believe anyone other than a fellow Christian is a theist (literal belief in God, in this case, Jesus).

My mother having been brought up in a Buddhist/Taoist background, personally I would say that they are religions/belief systems.

One of my all time favorite T shirts was made by my friends at Jesus People USA. On the front it has a picture of Jesus, and the question “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?”

That is hilarious.. but true.

I will not follow you to lumping Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism with atheism.

Atheism is skepticism, which morphs into a conviction for some who then may become militantly convinced. (Margaret Sanger for instance.)

Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are belief systems and have a modicum of unification. I have attended the MCU Buddhist University at Chang Mai in Thailand and I assure you that they have a very well developed theology. Their temples date back nearly a thousand years and their system of bringing young men through “monk training” is remarkable.

Perhaps the Great Atheist will appear one day and get the skeptics semi-organized. I doubt it. For the most part, atheists are a fairly lazy lot when it comes to their atheism.

As an aside, I notice that the American Atheist headquarters has suffered a failed roof and their books and materials got soaked. I would guess they see no irony in this. (Although I am fairly certain that they take notice when a church is hit by a tornado.)

If it is of any comfort, I believe that most anti-religion people are atheists. But I will not concede that atheists are anti-religion by definition. One can not construct that syllogism.

And indeed, if that is the thrust of your argument, then I would have to agree. After all, Confucianism; Taoism; Buddhism, with their lack of church, theology, leader, creed, loose organization, or ritual, could also not be considered religions.

And certainly, the Romans accused Christians of being atheists, and the Athenians did the same to Socrates, so yes, I understand…

We all have the habit of reading our impressions into things when our hot buttons are activated. Please excuse just on last remark on the topic.

Christians can be judged against rigid and immovable standards. Atheists, having no creed or standards, are innocent of all assigned qualities until they reveal themselves one step at a time.

To forgo religious belief in deference to doubt is the minimal qualification for atheism. Until you know more about the individual atheist’s mind and soul, that is a sufficient description. To assume an atheist is an active denier or opposer or religion is to imbue him with power and blame he has neither merited nor demonstrated.

We have enough internecine conflict within the sects of Christianity over whether the organ should be painted or the bells and smells need updating that we don’t need to go forth all armed and ready against an atheist army that is indifferent or too lazy to answer roll call.

La Shawn;“That’s exactly what I meant, Gabe. Thanks.”

Answered and explained…thanks

For example, students come to our group to study Torah, Hebraic Roots, Messianic Aposticism (whatever the hell that is.. LOL) and fundamental Christianity hoping what.. I guess that they can go and teach others or improve their lives, but then go away confused, but learned.

I guess it’s possible to be learned and confused, but when a teacher encourages students to know and IMAGINE the Almighty, but to KNOW the Almighty, we get cussed out by a Rabbi for…well we haven’t figured out why yet.

Which is why, though we diverge on a few things, I can understand more than I’ve admitted to you, why being dogmatic has faults, not unlike the “Handwriting of Ordinances” that the Apostles spoke against so much.

Which means that how we behave is more important that what we PRETEND to know.

I’m babbling.

I imagine if, like the practice of surveying, you asked people if they were agnostic, you’d get the applied result verses the preference.. ie..I’d like to be an ISTJ but I’m really an ENTJ.

agnostic: 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. (Merriam-Webster)

The definition dates to the mind of Thomas Huxley in 1869. Since then, many others have thrown their minds at the definition. Bertand Russell gave the following definition:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

And these two differing “definitions” have been further muddled by the musings of William Blake, Carl Jung, Albert Camus, Hermann Hesse, Allen Ginsburg, Arthur Schopenhauer and other “deep thinkers”who all cleaved in some significant measure to gnostic thought. These people have been stuffed into the category of “philosophy” by some, but they were more engaged in the infant (still) “science” of psychology.

If the 1869 definition of agnostic were cemented in place, 140 years would suffice. But even Dan Brown has thrown his revisionism into the concept with his DiVinci Code. Good on Merriam-Webster for attempting to nail it down. Now if we could get the “philosophers” and encyclopedia writers to agree……..

Meanwhile, I treat the word “agnostic” like the word “fascist” and give it wide berth.

“I assiduously avoid the concept of agnostic, because it is of recent coinage and has no settled meaning.”

You mean Gnosticism (yes I wrote Gnosticism) as defined or Gnosticism as practiced, because Huxley coined “agnostic” in response to it..right?

If usage isn’t broken in after 140 years then I don’t know what’s gonna do the deed, sir.

Well I’m at a loss too Gabe because I didn’t know we had atheists posting on this blog.

Who? Where? What proof?

You confuse honest atheism with some rare form of overt Christian (or other religion or all religion) opposition.

Atheists are skeptics and an amorphous blob of humanity in that they are without organization or even common agreement in their skepticism.

The Nazis, the USSR, Pol Pot and others made a clear target of some believers of religion and meant to replace the state or dictator as the “dear leader” or supreme power. That form of organized atheism is obvious.

Show me the parallel of organized atheism in the United States. I submit that there may be an undercurrent of atheism, at best, but that nothing rises to the level of anti-Christianity from them.

I assiduously avoid the concept of agnostic, because it is of recent coinage and has no settled meaning. Please remember that atheists run the gamut from indifferent doubter to full-fledged dissenter and vocal taunter.

That’s exactly what I meant, Gabe. Thanks. I used to spend lots of time explaining myself to new readers or long-time readers who didn’t bother considering context. Those days are over. My entire blog speaks for itself. And I can always depend on commenters like you to set the record straight.

Glad I could help, LaShawn! I know you don’t really need a defender, as it were, but between my 5 sisters, mom, wife and daughter, I’ve become programmed to step in when a lady is besmirched (even tacitly so).

I got your back.