Religion
Related: About this forumAcademic, activist or apatheist: What kind of unbeliever are you?
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/09/academic-activist-apatheist-kind-unbeliever/Kimberly Winston | Jun 9, 2014
(RNS) In his book In Faith and In Doubt: How Religious Believers and Nonbelievers Can Create Strong Marriages and Loving Families, author Dale McGowan writes that just as no one religions believers agree on everything, neither do all nonbelievers.
Drawing on a 2013 University of Tennessee study, he identifies six different types of atheists and agnostics:
1. The Academic Intellectual activities such as reading, discussion and healthy debate are at the heart (or brain) of the Academic atheists self-image. These atheists prefer to associate with others who have the same intellectual approach to life, even if their opinions are different, as long as they are well-informed. They often engage with others, both online and in person, around topics of mutual interest, including skepticism and freethought. Academics made up 37.6 percent of the nonbelievers in the study more than one in three.
2. The Activist These people want to change the world. Its not just atheist-related issues theyre interested in. They are engaged in the struggle for civil rights (including feminism and LGBT rights), environmental concerns, animal rights and other prominent social issues. Nearly one in four nonbelievers in the study (23 percent) were classified as the Activist type.
3. The Seeker-Agnostic Seeker-Agnostics recognize that its hard to make confident statements about metaphysical beliefs. They see open-mindedness as a major virtue, recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience, and embrace uncertainty. Some say they miss being a believer in some way, whether the social benefits, or the emotional ones, or the connection it gave them to friends and family. Some continue to identify as religious or spiritual, even though they do not believe in God.
Seeker-Agnostics made up 7.6 percent of the respondents about 1 in 13.
more at link
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Clearly we have a skewed population posting in this room. I would love to see more balance, but I am not optimistic, as those that don't toe the party line are quickly bullied out of the room most of the time.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are of course, other possibilities, such as but not limited to 'mild' atheists having no interest in a religion forum, being uninterested in religion OR debate about religion.
If you're going to assume any one particular (rather negative) solution to the question, I'm going to have to ask for data to back up the assertion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)of the dynamic of the room. I moderated it for hers before booming a participant.
You may disagree with me and you may think it's rude, but that's my observation of what has happened here. It has changed over time. The bullies used to fully own it - not so much any more.
I am am hopeful that that evolution will continue.
This is not a data driven opinion, it's just an observation. Take it or leave it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)FYI - this same list was published a year ago.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or surveys, and in this one in particular.
But I thought his breakdown was interesting if one wants to begin to look at and talk about sub-groups within atheism.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)While also preaching that it's a rude and inappropriate thing to do.
So which is it?
LostOne4Ever
(9,292 posts)I am a group unto myself
Seriously though, there are things I like and dislike about this study.
I like that it shows the diversity among nonbelievers, but I feel that creating these arbitrary labels results in unnecessary editorializing and distracts from the real data. The labels themselves feel loaded and to a degree read like a horoscope. Who wouldn't want to be an intellectual or open-minded? Who wants to be seen as aggressive?
And how many people had traits from multiple groups? Can not a person feel religion is a force for ill and be an activist at the same time? Can't one be a non-believer because they are not interested but otherwise fit the intellectual label as well? What criteria was used to determine which group to lump people in if they didn't perfectly fit their label? Yet the numbers all conveniently add up to 99.9%.
I think it would have been better if they simply listed the individual traits they were measuring and the percentages involved.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is a group unto themselves, when it comes down to it.
But we may be in a time when there is a need to better define subgroups.
I have many of the same concerns and criticisms that you do, but I also have these when I see some religious sub-group breakdowns.
Is there any valuing in labeling? I think there is in certain kinds of discussions or surveys. But I also think that labeling can be used in a negative way.
Anyway, it's an interesting way of looking at it, imo.