Ya know, I really do not have any skin in the game of definitions. I didn’t make them up, I just read them and go from there. Personally, when folks say that I’m “religious” by definition, I am but I despise the word but no matter how much I kick and scream (if I did such a thing) it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. The same goes for Atheism, Humanism, Catholicism or Protestantism. They are belief systems ergo by definition they are religions. Now, anyone can consider themselves to be this and that and it doesn’t make or break my day in any way shape or form. I do not care. Everyone here is old enough to know who and what they are and hopefully like who they are. Everyone here is old enough to have studied and heard all the angles and heard all the information necessary to establish their own identity and even mentally re-invent the wording of that identity. That said, no matter how much one re-invents that wording, the overwhelming acceptance of the original definition as published will still be valid.
Oh, the nit-picking can go on forever. Atheists don't believe in God. Agnostics don't know what to believe. The End.
"Agnostic" literally means "without knowledge." The Gnostics relied on "personal knowledge based on direct participation with the divine." So just as A-theist literally means "an absence of belief in the existence of deities," A-gnostic means "without knowledge."
So you are quasignostic. Or semignostic. Or maybe paragnostic. Years ago, I read "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels. Fascinating reading about the Gnostic texts found in caves at Nag Hamaddi in Egypt in the 1940s. These include texts claiming to be gospel accounts that are not included in the Bible (like The Gospel of Thomas.) Most of these have been dismissed as not being authentic. But scholars have concluded that Ecclesiastices was likely not written by Solomon as originally thought. So who knows?
And as Paul told the Ephesians, “you have gnosis but I have *epignosis”. *Correct knowledge and some translations go as far as saying, Full knowledge.
The 1st verse 1:1 says that this book is the "words of the Preacher (translated from the Greek, Qoheleth), the son of David, king in Jerusalem. So, to me, it must have been written by Solomon.
The thought is that it was written by a scholar maybe 2 centuries after Solomon died. So perhaps it was Solomon's words as passed down, but it was not by his hand or his direct dictation...according to some scholarly thought. Others have dismissed the controversy as being yet one more routine attack on the legitimacy of the Bible.
Yes, that could be true, no doubt. There will always be routine attacks like that, just like always in the past.
Like I said, nit-picking. In my somewhat limited world where Google isn't at play, an agnostic is simply someone seeking their own truth. They neither believe nor disbelieve in a higher power; they are merely seeking to know. And getting back to the premise of the thread, I believe that generally speaking most people consider organized religion when discussing "religion." Since atheists and agnostics don't group together on a specific day/location to worship a deity (that I am aware of but I'm sure someone will Google to prove me incorrect), I'm going to agree with @Lon Tanner that atheists are not "more religious" than Christians. ETA: Well, from the article quoted in the first post of this thread, I find this tidbit... "America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities." So I stand corrected... as usual.
I don't know that you stand corrected, as you may later find data that supports your original assertion. This is human behaviour we're talking about here. Maybe 5 years ago, the District Supervisors of the United Methodist Church went around holding meetings on a high-level mission to increase attendance. One of the questions that they asked was "Why do you think so many people attended church in the past?" We gave the same answer that is found in your quote: "They craved community." And not all that long ago, Sunday services were about the only way to get it. So there has always been a component of "humanistic religion minus the faith" showing up in Christian services. I can understand "community groups" being created around this model (likely with a huge driver being getting rid of the "thou shalt nots"), although it makes one one genuinely curious as to what they are being taught. Heck, mainstream churches may be unintentional participants in this, as they want to know "what they can do" to attract more attendees. The UMC launched a "Vital Signs" program that "invites" [read requires] churches to log onto a website every single week and record a bunch of metrics on that week's services, attendance, group participation, demographics, collections, and a ton of other stuff sliced & diced by age, gender, etc...every single week. Church leadership has overtly reduced the congregants to nothing more than statistics. Small rural churches are most burdened with this needless secular corporate bureaucracy, as they lack the resources (and sometimes the skills) to input their insignificant data. The communicated priorities are not what they should be.
I thought he might be getting email notifications from this thread he started and return to argue, but I guess that didn't work.