As I understood it, a-theism meant going a step beyond Agnosticism. The a-theist does not even sit around saying anything at all about religion; not even saying that it is seemingly impossible to know. Rather the a-theist as defined here, over the last 6 months of so, was apparently someone who ... just never thought about religion or God at all. In no way whatsoever.
In some way, I suppose this kind of person is rather like the "none"s found on questionaires about what our religion might be, too. We don't have a god, because we never think of one.
Importantly? The a-theists that appeared on our DU blog, did not even particularly want to argue with anyone - for or against. In that sense, they were at least, rather pacifistic and non-threatening. They were not trying to annihilate beliefs. They simply turned away from them, and ignored those things.
Strangely, that kind of a-theist might be one step in the direction that Jim advocates. They are not attacking religious beliefs, first of all.
The next step? Might be to say, simply speak about different values, and the good they do. Without mentioning Religion at all, some are now speaking more about the usefulness of Reason, say.
In this way, there are no attacks from a-theists, on the old religious way of thinking. Instead they are say, just speaking in a positive way about something else.
= new reply since forum marked as read
