6 Types of Atheists

Timshel

New member
http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america?page=0,1

http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america?page=0,1With the rising number of people in America— now nearly one in five—who have no religious affiliation at all, more people are asking questions about who exactly these unbelievers are. Not all of them identify as atheist or agnostic or a non-believer, but plenty do, and while there are many people offering to defend this particular community, few are willing to speak for them.


After all, unlike religious believers, non-believers have no authorities, no hierarchies, no theology, nothing for us to look at to determine exactly who these people are. In addition, the public image of atheists, who are a diverse group in reality, is being shaped by a handful of vocal white men—Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens being the most famous—who, while well-respected in the atheist community, are not really representative.


Because of this, researchers at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga decided to poll and interview non-believers to find out what kind of people abandon religious faith and why. Based on this research, the project authors were able to divide non-believers into six basic categories, some of which may surprise you.


First things first: While atheists have a public image of being dogmatic and belligerent—an image that famous atheists like Bill Maher only end up reinforcing—researchers found that to absolutely not be true. Only 15 percent of non-believers even fit in the category of those who actively seek out religious people to argue with, and the subset that are dogmatic about it are probably even smaller than that. But that doesn’t mean that the majority of non-believers are just sitting around, twiddling their thumbs and not letting atheism affect their worldview. On the contrary, researchers found that the majority of non-believers take some kind of action in the world to promote humanism, atheism or secularism. Here is a breakdown of the types.


http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america?page=0,1
 
Do you think the types are complete? Where do you fall?

I think they are pretty complete. I would say I am an intellectual atheist/agnostic.
 
Is this a religious forum or a political forum?

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion……”
 
Classic Liberal
Verified User
This message is hidden because Classic Liberal is on your ignore list.

Ahh, that's better.

A troll is a pretend libertarian posting off topic shit in my thread. I am curious if someone was not upset that he could not derail this with another login? Hmmmm.....

Our religious beliefs or lack thereof, obviously, impact our politics, even in a secular state as they may give reason to attack or defend the secular state. This article referenced political beliefs in the classifications of atheists. It is, without any doubt, politically relevant. But the title makes clear what it's about and if you are not interested there is no need for you to post or read. If you want to start another thread to discuss the relevance of posting such things, go for it.
 
2. Activist. This group also gets commonly accused of being dogmatic, but like the intellectual atheist, while they’re firm in their beliefs, they’re intellectually flexible and don’t prioritize attacking believers. Instead, they are motivated by a strong sense of humanist values to make change in the world, often making related issues—such as feminism, gay rights, or the environment—a priority over simply advocating atheism. This group also advocates for a better, more egalitarian atheist community, according to researchers: “They seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere." Because of this, they unfortunately attract a lot of abuse from a small but vocal minority of atheists who disapprove of linking secularism with larger social justice issues, but they do have the numbers on their side. They are the second biggest sub-category of non-believers, making up 23 percent of non-believers.




the closest for me is 2
 
2. Activist. This group also gets commonly accused of being dogmatic, but like the intellectual atheist, while they’re firm in their beliefs, they’re intellectually flexible and don’t prioritize attacking believers. Instead, they are motivated by a strong sense of humanist values to make change in the world, often making related issues—such as feminism, gay rights, or the environment—a priority over simply advocating atheism. This group also advocates for a better, more egalitarian atheist community, according to researchers: “They seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere." Because of this, they unfortunately attract a lot of abuse from a small but vocal minority of atheists who disapprove of linking secularism with larger social justice issues, but they do have the numbers on their side. They are the second biggest sub-category of non-believers, making up 23 percent of non-believers.




the closest for me is 2

I thought of myself being there for a minute but my political activism is motivated by my libertarian and skeptical beliefs than humanism. There is quite a bit of overlap but not full agreement.
 
this whole world is about helping others.

that is how man grew this wonderful big brain.


Ideas of what happens when our bodies rot away and no brain function is left don't always lend themselves to making the help happen.


I don't care what you think happens after death as long as you will stand beside me and help this world be the best human kind can deliver.


Oranized religion SHOULD help facilitate this.

If it does not then its not my or mankinds friend
 
Initially I thought this thread was about Dawkins' continuum; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."​
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I used to be a six, but probably am a 7 now.

Sorry to throw another scale in here, please ignore me if too much off-topic.
 
on that one I think Im still a six.

Just so much we don't know yet.

maybe as far as a 6.9 though
 
Do you think the types are complete? Where do you fall?

I think they are pretty complete. I would say I am an intellectual atheist/agnostic.

There is very likely a large body of folks who fall in between various categories. Personally, I'd be #1, but with more of an agnostic leaning.
 
I am definitely an intellectual atheist but i know a few anti-theists who i disagree with. I dislike religion not religious people. Trying to fight bigotry with bigotry is one of the worst principles one could come up with.
 
Fair point. But I kind of agree with Jung-esque things like this. Categorizing individuals and beleifs is a good avenue through which to understand the material form of ideology.


yes it gives you a way to help refine what you believe and what others believe
 
I am definitely an intellectual atheist but i know a few anti-theists who i disagree with. I dislike religion not religious people. Trying to fight bigotry with bigotry is one of the worst principles one could come up with.

Most change is brought through the confrontation of extremes. Thus, if we're really to address the problem of religion, the opposition must come with a similar degree of force and vigor.
 
at the same time i think all people have a slightly agnostic leaning no one can seriously say that they are right 100% no doubt about it and be believe it.
 
Back
Top