Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2013, 11:02:57 AM
Perhaps the Western War on Religion is dying down as we come to a keener understanding of the mysteries of both Science and Faith.
there's a war on religion? really? do a few cranky atheists a war make, or have i been missing something?
'fear ov the turk' is too general for me to know where you're goïng with it.
those anti-jewish pogroms were launched by christians.
what's goïng on in Africa and India is more about replacing the local religions with christianity than about simply eradicating them.
catholics and protestants have been at each other's throats over trivial things since about five minutes after Martin Luther aired his grievances (for the first five minutes, they were at each other's throats over serious things).
erasing the old religions ov the celts and the norse was done in the name ov specifically christian progress.
i know nothing about the burning ov south american codices, so i've nothing to say on it.
i've never heard ov christians beïng expelled from the sciences.
the fundamentalist attack on the scientific establishment is exactly what it says on the tin.
what i see is christianity waging war on everyöne, including itself. referring to that as a war ON religion is misleading at best.
One might call it a war on religion, or a battle between the non-believer and the believer,
but I prefer to call it a war between truth and untruth,
a war between opinions based on science, logic, and reason, and opinions based on authority, tradition, or dogma ...
a war between knowledge and ignorance,
a war between having peace or having war,
a war between having the good life or having continual suffering,
a war between encouraging hatred of the infidel or encouraging love and compassion toward all.
Science provides a method to disprove itself. It claims not answers, but questions. In religion, if you don't understand something, that's OK, God made it so... God is the truth. God is the reason... How can any rational person who claims knowledge of science be on the side of something that demands blind faith and offers no answers beyond the mystical? Baptists are worst of all main stream religions. Some of the most die hard litteralists I have ever met were bible thumping southern baptists.
I'm not saying a scientist can't be religious, and Im not saying being religious makes you ignorant, It just allows for it. Blind faith is a cop out, it removes curiosity from the human spirit, and if the human species never questioned its Gods we never would have advanced beyond the caves.
Quote from: ronchamblin on June 13, 2013, 07:26:21 PM
One might call it a war on religion, or a battle between the non-believer and the believer,
but I prefer to call it a war between truth and untruth,
a war between opinions based on science, logic, and reason, and opinions based on authority, tradition, or dogma ...
a war between knowledge and ignorance,
a war between having peace or having war,
a war between having the good life or having continual suffering,
a war between encouraging hatred of the infidel or encouraging love and compassion toward all.
You need to open your mind a little Ron. Your black and white list is simply off base... And no one would classify me as a religious person.
I would submit that non believers certainly do not corner the market in the areas of "truth"... or "peace"... or "knowledge". If you claim to be honest in this argument of yours then you need to fairly and honestly acknowledge the failings and accomplishments of both groupings. I take no issue with your beliefs... but know... they are yours... and you certainly have come nowhere close to providing evidence to sway many to your point of view.
Of course I am now kicking myself for putting down the popcorn and beer and joining the discussion. Hopefully the nausea goes away... 8)
QuoteStephen Dare: But I dont mean political war, perhaps I wasnt very clear in my meaning. I just mean the general idea that there are two opposing groups of knowledge and world view in the Western viewpoint. Science on the one hand, and Religion on the other.
From my perspective what is underneath the conflict in this and other discussions on this board (and globally) regarding "religion" is in fact a "conflict of beliefs and viewpoints" that fall both within and outside of what one might classically define as religion. The origin of this conflict is very basic to the human experience. We want to know the why's of our existence, explain our origins here on earth in a way that makes sense to us in the face of a perceived reality that in fact cannot be quantified in a way that all humanity can agree upon.
The human experience on this planet encompasses a blip on the radar of all that is in this universe and beyond. The few years that we each walk the earth as flesh are infinitesimal in the scheme of what is eternal. We understand through our experience as humans that all things born of flesh must and will die. It is this reality that is the drive behind our need as human beings to know what exactly we are both in the flesh and beyond. For some folks the belief in current scientific understandings is truth in it's entirety. For human beings pure science indicates that between conception and death there is human consciousness and life, beyond that oblivion. Science would indicate that the entirety of our experiences are driven by what our brain perceives to be going on both within and outside of us. This scientific view is what many atheist's choose to justify their own beliefs. We are simply organic creatures, end of story. For agnostics the view is one of having no view one way or the other about religion. For others, it is impossible to accept that the experience of being a human being is confined to what is happening in the flesh and rather is an experience that goes far beyond the physical realities we are currently living. This has resulted in a multitude and unending variety of religious and spiritual beliefs across the globe. The question then becomes who is right? Those who feel that intellect and science reigns, those who don't care one way or the other or those who hold to some sort of spiritual or religious belief? Does it really matter? Regardless of what we individually hold to be true, the full reality of who and what we are is not defined by what exists between conception and death. We as human beings are energy and consciousness expressed through flesh. That energy is part and parcel of all that is the universe, even when the flesh expires the energy remains and as such so remains the stuff of which we are formed. We are all eternal in that way.
So is the question really one of whether or not there is a force in this universe that organizes universal energy in a conscious way, further what is that organizing force? For non believers it is all science. For believers it is beyond science and we exist by higher design. There is no problem really in either view. Arguments, hatred, wars and all the negative outcroppings of human interaction erupt when a person or group of persons attempt to impose their "beliefs" upon others as the only reasonable and acceptable truth. There is a balance to be had in human existence and we will only find that balance in our external environment when we find it first internally. That is where the real war is being raged.
Quote from: ronchamblin on June 13, 2013, 07:26:21 PM
One might call it a war on religion, or a battle between the non-believer and the believer,
but I prefer to call it a war between truth and untruth,
a war between opinions based on science, logic, and reason, and opinions based on authority, tradition, or dogma ...
a war between knowledge and ignorance,
a war between having peace or having war,
a war between having the good life or having continual suffering,
a war between encouraging hatred of the infidel or encouraging love and compassion toward all.
Ron, you really need to stop with your big bad self. lol You have already stated your agenda repeatedly in numerous threads across this forum. That agenda is to "awaken" all of humanity to the science of our existence according to your own beliefs. What you seem to fail to realize is that your manner of debate, discussion etc comes across as arrogant and condescending and that bombastic rhetoric framed by implied intellectual superiority has worn very, very thin. You are very much like the religious zealots you so readily condemn in your fervent beliefs and views. The only difference is that your "religion" is science and you are looking to convert others to your views. ;)
Its impossible to effectively argue with someone who claims to know all of the answers of the universe because they believe on one man made deity, or another. Personally, I am rather enjoying Rons scorched earth approach, almost as much as I love seeing Dares tongue wagging defense of openly homophonic and anti-humanist organizations like FBC.
Quote from: Demosthenes on June 14, 2013, 10:53:08 AM
Its impossible to effectively argue with someone who claims to know all of the answers of the universe because they believe on one man made deity, or another. Personally, I am rather enjoying Rons scorched earth approach, almost as much as I love seeing Dares tongue wagging defense of openly homophonic and anti-humanist organizations like FBC.
I get what you are saying about the back and forth of the conversation. lol Can you clarify for me if you are saying that you can't argue or debate someone who firmly believes in a religious deity? If so could not the same statement be made about a person who firmly believes that science holds all the answers? Not a challenge, just a question. :)
I have said it before, science is not an answer. Its a method of questioning.
Lets use global warming as an example. Often those who believe in global environmantal change are accused of being theistic in their approach to discovering the cause of change. Rather ironically, most of these accusations are made by evangelical conservatives.
Any human can observe that the environment is always changing. Observing this change, and then asking the hows and whys are not, in themselves a religion. Taking observable info, and trying to associate causes and effects is the exact opposite of religion.
Religion not only asks for, but demands that its follower accept the religons doctrine as the one and only true answer, while offering only mystical stories and fables. See that beautiful sunset? Thats not caused by the rotation of the earth, the conditions of the atmosphere, the wildfires to the west, or a volcano eruption... nope, God did that.
Worst yet, many religions ask its followers to DENY observable data. Dinosaur bones? Whats a dinosaur, just another one of gods creatures who sailed on the arc with Noah. Millions of years of sediment and bones? Nope, earth is only 6000 years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark
http://bit.ly/153SaVk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3XEDwvqcoo
BTW, interesting thing to note, if you listen to the young earth, Dinosaur/Man walked together sermons, you will hear the same theme, not all types of dinosaurs had to be represented on the arc. Only a few were needed to repopulate the earth, not two of each type, but just two of the species...
My question is, if there are 700 published species of dinosaur, if you only have 4 on the arc, and they repopulate and create all of the various kinds of dinosaurs afterwards... how do you explain the vast array of dinosaurs? Perhaps they.... evolved?
Demosthenes, I see your point and the distinction you are making between science and religion and respect it. I agree with the notion that many forms of religion not only demand belief and adherence to particular doctrines but would add that many have historically used fear in order to force people to believe in a specific god, gods or other supreme being. This has resulted in conflict, murder and war throughout the world which continues to this day, all of it stemming from the demand that people believe one doctrine, whatever that might be. In the same way I acknowledge that science can be a way of questioning our existence and the universe in which we dwell, I also see that science cannot accurately answer all that is asked of it. Further, does science even know what to ask and how to measure the possibility of a divine influence in our beings and lives? I think not.
For me personally I have no need to draw others to my personal perception or beliefs about life as a human being and rather understand that my personal views and feelings need be accepted by no one else. I am not a fan however of scorched earth discussions. lol I have no problem with folks who are atheist, agnostic or religious as long as they do not try and impose their beliefs on me or on the entirety of the global community. In that way I can also say that I think ignoring what science has been able to prove about our earth, how old it is, evolution and humanity is purely folly and goes against good reason. For me there is a deep understanding and knowing about my part in this universe as a human being and consciousness that cannot be measured but simply understood in my inner being. I accept we are beings of flesh and bone with the ability to think and reason. I know we are more than that however. We are a part of something much greater which is the force that created us and our world. For me I can readily marry the concept of science with the personal understanding that the "essence" of our being survives death and remains conscious and knowing. How that "essence" continues is up for discussion and debate. I personally think there is more than one right answer, in fact there are many valid answers :)
Good posts Stephen. The examples you give clearly show the great diversity of perceptions that can be found in the tenants of a variety of religious disciplines each one thinking their interpretation of our beginnings and universe is the correct one. :)
I smiled at the statement about an apology being owed to Darwin. I believe he had it "mostly" right as it regards evolution on what we know as our earth and those dwelling upon it. It's worth noting that there are those in evolutionary research who have now identified at least five different types of human beings predating us and that comes from information that best interprets scientific research regarding the most recent millions of years of our planets existence. Not all of them fit with the ape to human theory. It is also interesting to ponder the reality that there are some learned folks who have determined that the world has suffered more than a single mass destruction of life even before the destruction of the dinosaurs. Were there other type of intelligent and reasoning beings here before? There is also the growing belief that another advanced intelligence possibly extraterrestrial, tampered with the human genome. Interesting to ponder considering that 90% of our DNA structure is not understood by science. What might we discover about ourselves when that mystery is unlocked? ;)
Seems to me that the offensive measures in this "war" are coming from the religious right.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/14/perry-signs-merry-christmas-bill-into-law/?test=latestnews
Agnostics and Athiest are not calling for an end to religion. They are simply challenging churches in public institutions. Rick Perry, meanwhile, is saying that freedom of religion is not the same of freedom FROM religion... So, if you are non-christian in Texas... Merry Christmas anyway!!!
Sounds like quite a show. They didn't say a thing however about what happens when you say "Happy Halloween" in Texas. Is freedom of paganism the same as freedom FROM paganism? Inquiring minds want to know. lol
Halloween, or All Hallows Eve (All Saints) is Christian, though it probably has Pagen roots to harvest festivals....
http://www.americancatholic.org/features/default.aspx?id=23
This is much like Christmas, which was simply a co-op of the winter solstice as the birth of a savior, to passify the pagans (See, we arent all that different!) Even though, based on the bibles own time tables, Jesus was more likely born in March or April....
http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/biblical-evidence-shows-jesus-christ-wasnt-born-dec-25/
http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/holidays/christmas4.htm
But hey, Rick Perry knows better, so Dec 25th it is!
Halloween was originally a pagan ceremony. :) Like Christmas it was co-oped by Christianity. You are right about the date celebrated as Christ's birthday. Many theologians readily acknowledge that the birth was not actually on December 25th, especially considering the fact that ancient calender was quite different than the one used today.
Quote from: stephendare on June 13, 2013, 06:32:01 PM
Would you say that the National Socialists were "Christians"? Or how about Soviet Russia?
Most of the national socialists were actually encouraged to choose either an atheist or a nordic religious system, and the Soviets were official without religion, and simultaneously cracked down on the Christians as well.
The suppression of hundreds of religious groups in India and Africa happens for a variety of reasons, most of them commercial, and while Christian Groups would love to convert an entire continent to some form of Christianity, by no means does it have a monopoly on proselytizing. Certainly the hindi and the pakistani muslims manage enough religious suppression well enough on their own without the help of either bishop or parson.
The Celts were suppressed by the Romans, and the Norse are suppressed to this day by government policy.
But I dont mean political war, perhaps I wasnt very clear in my meaning. I just mean the general idea that there are two opposing groups of knowledge and world view in the Western viewpoint. Science on the one hand, and Religion on the other.
We have spent a lot of time dismissing the religions of thousands of cultures and peoples all over the world, often to our own dismay and later regret in the name of 'progress'.
Its a long slow battle, and I am not the first person (by far) of reason to remark on this process.
you're absolutely right regarding the USSR, but you're fairly off-base regarding the NSDAP. while the nazis encouraged norse folklore as part ov their overall program ov getting german people to see themselves as separate from and better than the rest ov the world, the actual beliefs encouraged were strongly christian--when the banners said "Gott mit Uns," they very much meant the god ov the bible (i used to be fascinated with the idea ov nazi occultism, bought myself a book or two, and discovered that there was almost no such thing--and what little there was simply retold the Christ story).
as far as a more general 'opposing groups ov knowledge' sense, well, ov course. if that's what you meant, i think 'war' is too strong a term, but i certainly don't deny that it's been happening. and while christianity doesn't necessarily have a
worldwide monopoly on proselytizing, in what we generally think ov as 'the western world', it's got a nigh-stranglehold.
The very question, “What god do you believe in?†allows some of us to suspect nonsense is in the environment, as the question implies that at least one of the gods does not exist, and if one does not exist, none do. The question implies that one can “pick†a god from history’s pantheon, and then, if one is inclined, defend one’s pick against the gods selected by others.
The very statement from Don Redman, requesting that the Muslim “pray to his god†should show the absurdity of believing in, or praying to, a god. Is Redman, or anyone else asking a similar question, admitting the existence of two gods? And if there are two, are there more? If there are more, then surely there are none. Of course, there are no gods anywhere but in the minds of those who need them, or wish to imagine them.
I only offer to others my opinion as to the nature of believing in gods, and therefore in one of the various religions. One’s mind is possessed by its owner, and although it is always vulnerable to persuasion from outside, it settles upon beliefs comfortable to it. One must possess beliefs which give comfort and mental stability, whatever these beliefs turn out to be -- even if it involves a belief in a religion and/or a god.
My indifference to the drunk or the druggie evolves to concern and opposition only when the consequence of the habit negatively, and excessively, affects me or other citizens. After all, who am I to judge, as their addictions frequently allow levels of happiness and oblivion many of us could appreciate too, if we should find ourselves able to engage the same addictions.
I support anyone’s freedom to engage any habit or thought process which gives happiness and balance, unless that process begins to excessively cause difficulties or harm to me or other citizens.
When does the drunk or druggie begin to excessively cause difficulties? And when a bothersome or harmful excess exists, does one simply ignore, or attempt to change or remove the drunk or the druggie from one’s environment?
The point is that people accumulate and cultivate ideas, beliefs, and convictions which allow them to be at peace with themselves and their world -- so that they might survive and stabilize within their environment. Therefore, one should not attempt crushing the beliefs, methods or vehicles or addictions which give them the ability to survive unless one has alternatives, perhaps in the form of new ideas, which will also allow survival, comfort, and stability.
All one can do is offer ideas ... new and different thoughts, to others. And this is the wonderful thing about this forum, and others like it.
QuoteRon Chamblin The point is that people accumulate and cultivate ideas, beliefs, and convictions which allow them to be at peace with themselves and their world -- so that they might survive and stabilize within their environment. Therefore, one should not attempt crushing the beliefs, methods or vehicles or addictions which give them the ability to survive unless one has alternatives, perhaps in the form of new ideas, which will also allow survival, comfort, and stability.
All one can do is offer ideas ... new and different thoughts, to others. And this is the wonderful thing about this forum, and others like it.
So you clearly understand the point, yet knowing that ones beliefs is also deeply tied to their own comfort and stability you continue to challenge others beliefs in your posting in such a way that suggests your ideas about what folks should believe and how are superior. Constantly you put forward your rational as an intellectual challenge to others who read and post, i.e. if they believe in a greater presence in their existence and soul that it is they, not you who is mistaken or misguided.
I hope you do not think my words insulting as that is not the intent, but in your zeal to make a point, you as well should take care not to insult the intellect, understanding and beliefs of others. Clearly you are well read and I too adore books and the accumulation of knowledge, but spiritual understandings can only be tested by wide experience in the world. Ron, I have traveled far and been blessed enough to have experienced and been involved with the spiritual understanding and practices of people all over the globe. There is something to this existence as human beings that reaches far beyond the physical, lies deep within and without and is born of love and kindness. This is not fancy, whim or will but a real force. I don't think you truly understand or have been able to touch that which lies beyond the "tangible" in this world and I am sorry for that. Perhaps add some life experiences to your reading about spirituality and it will be your eyes that open.
I respect your right to your views as I do those of believers and nonbelievers alike.I don't though believe there is an innate right possessed by anyone to make others feel as if their truth is somehow inferior, foolish or plainly stupid. Each reality is a personal reality created by the one living it and believe it or not, that reality is truth for the person living it.
Religion is born of mankinds deep fear of the unknown. We have applied mysticism and God like importance to things we didn't understand through out human history. Modern religion is no different.
At least many of the old religions demanded its followers live in harmony with the world around them. Judeo-Christian religions takes a different tact. God made this all just for us. Yeaaaa humans, we don't have to be good wards of our world because God made it just for us!! weeeee.!
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on June 15, 2013, 12:37:37 PM
QuoteRon Chamblin The point is that people accumulate and cultivate ideas, beliefs, and convictions which allow them to be at peace with themselves and their world -- so that they might survive and stabilize within their environment. Therefore, one should not attempt crushing the beliefs, methods or vehicles or addictions which give them the ability to survive unless one has alternatives, perhaps in the form of new ideas, which will also allow survival, comfort, and stability.
All one can do is offer ideas ... new and different thoughts, to others. And this is the wonderful thing about this forum, and others like it.
So you clearly understand the point, yet knowing that ones beliefs is also deeply tied to their own comfort and stability you continue to challenge others beliefs in your posting in such a way that suggests your ideas about what folks should believe and how are superior. Constantly you put forward your rational as an intellectual challenge to others who read and post, i.e. if they believe in a greater presence in their existence and soul that it is they, not you who is mistaken or misguided.
I hope you do not think my words insulting as that is not the intent, but in your zeal to make a point, you as well should take care not to insult the intellect, understanding and beliefs of others. Clearly you are well read and I too adore books and the accumulation of knowledge, but spiritual understandings can only be tested by wide experience in the world. Ron, I have traveled far and been blessed enough to have experienced and been involved with the spiritual understanding and practices of people all over the globe. There is something to this existence as human beings that reaches far beyond the physical, lies deep within and without and is born of love and kindness. This is not fancy, whim or will but a real force. I don't think you truly understand or have been able to touch that which lies beyond the "tangible" in this world and I am sorry for that. Perhaps add some life experiences to your reading about spirituality and it will be your eyes that open.
I respect your right to your views as I do those of believers and nonbelievers alike.I don't though believe there is an innate right possessed by anyone to make others feel as if their truth is somehow inferior, foolish or plainly stupid. Each reality is a personal reality created by the one living it and believe it or not, that reality is truth for the person living it.
Thanks CC. Other’s beliefs regarding religion are of little concern to me in many respects, except when the consequences of their beliefs are perceived by me to be harmful to me, to other citizens, or to society in general. As I’ve stated above, if someone wants to get drunk or drugged in isolation, so be it, especially if it gives them comfort and allows them to function with reasonable stability in society.
So, the question might be whether or not certain segments of believers, as a consequence of their beliefs, pose problems for me directly or indirectly; that is, on society in general, perhaps via governmental influences on policies, and even via effects on the economy. Just how the existence of, and power of, religious groups negatively affect the quality of life in our country is a whole subject in itself, which I will not delve into for the moment.
However, if I, or other concerned citizens who happen to be atheists (good people), perceive negative consequences of a relatively large population of believers, then we are, by our concern and willingness to improve society and the quality of life within, inclined to offer ideas targeted to enlighten the believers, and others “on the fence†of believing, as to the preferred condition, according to our beliefs, of non-belief in some of the established religions.
Just as the religious enthusiasts are given the freedom to practice their beliefs, and to offer continual pressures to non-believers as to the benefits of believing; so too, we atheists welcome the freedom to offer ideas persuading our views. So…. yes I offer ideas suggesting my ideas are superior, as you’ve suggested above, as most discussions or arguments usually offer one view as right, another as wrong; otherwise I would choose silence. And yes …. I do suggest that I am right, and that believers are wrong for the most part. Otherwise, what is the use of engaging the subject? If I come across as arrogant, perhaps it is because I offer directness, not being shackled or influenced by the ambiguities and superstitions of religion.
One would think that believers would welcome the ideas coming from me and other atheists, as the engagement with new or opposing ideas usually forces one to weigh the quality of their own, with the consequence that the content of their minds will achieve greater conviction at least, but hopefully, if the ultimate good is to be achieved, more truth in the end.
Again, I appreciate your balanced ideas CC. You soften, and invite reflection.
Ron, let me see if I can break this down a bit more to perhaps show you more clearly that the way you sometimes express your views is an indicator of a line of thinking that may not be based in the reality behind the views of others but rather what you "think" to be the views of others, in this case those holding religious or spiritual beliefs. In the statement quoted below and another later in your post you use the word "perceive" to make a point.
Quote
Thanks CC. Other’s beliefs regarding religion are of little concern to me in many respects, except when the consequences of their beliefs are perceived by me to be harmful to me, to other citizens, or to society in general, perhaps via governmental influences on policies, and even via effects on the economy.
Much in life is a matter of perception don't you think? The rub is and has always been that human beings "perceive" things differently. When we speak to a serious point and make assertions about the views of others being "incorrect" based simply upon our own "perception", we are in essence stating that our "perception" of an issue is superior to those we argue against. Some like the color blue and find it soothing, others might not like blue and find it depressing. Some "perceive" beauty in modern architecture while others may find it cold. So who is correct? The answer is that both are because their response to a color or architecture is based in their own emotional response to what they see, feel and hear. That is their personal reality.
To the second part of your statement let me remark that while there is undoubtedly influence exerted by "some" with deep religious convictions on society, government or economy as you assert, not all who hold specific religious beliefs try and impose them upon others, but do in fact simply hold to their faith at a personal level and do not try and force those beliefs or views on others. I think this is an important fact worth noting. :) When it comes to impact on society, government and the economy we could just as easily argue that these things are impacted negatively by one political party or another or a wide variety of other influences, race, gender, level of education etc.
It appears that your thought processes is based in an either/or mentality for I can honestly state that not all who disagree with religious beliefs influencing and driving things in government etc. are atheist. I think religion has not place in governing. lol Further, you state that all do not welcome debate or discussion with "atheists" and that is just incorrect Ron. There are many in this world who hold beliefs about spirituality who will readily discuss and engage the thoughts of "atheists" about any and all topics including religion. To take the thought further if I may, not everyone thinks that "atheists" are bad people. I know I certainly don't and I hold no negative or "superior" judgement against those whose life experience and views have caused them to decide that religion or spiritual beliefs are not reasonable for one reason or another. Nor do I think those who do not believe are going to suffer some horrible retribution for that non belief in an afterlife. All that matters is that we live with respect for the earth and each other. Even better when we act to lift up those who suffer. Do no harm if you will.
Thought this information is worth posting in view of the various discussions on the forum about believers and non believers. I know many in the different threads have declared they are atheists. Who knew there were six categories? Be nice and don't make me regret posting this. For those who don't believe, which one would you describe yourself as?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/15/the-six-types-of-atheists/?sr=fb071613sixtypesatheist6p
Quote
"These categories are a first stab at this," Silver told the website Raw Story. "In 30 years, we may be looking at a typology of 32 types."
Silver and Coleman derived their six types of nonbelievers from 59 interviews. We're pretty sure we've spotted all six in our comments section.
1) Intellectual atheist/agnostic
This type of nonbeliever seeks information and intellectual stimulation about atheism.
They like debating and arguing, particularly on popular Internet sites.
(Ahem.)
They're also well-versed in books and articles about religion and atheism, and prone to citing those works frequently.
2) Activist
These kinds of atheists and agnostics are not content with just disbelieving in God; they want to tell others why they reject religion and why society would be better off if we all did likewise.
They tend to be vocal about political causes like gay rights, feminism, the environment and the care of animals.
3) Seeker-agnostic
This group is made up of people who are unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience.
Silver and Coleman describe this group as people who regularly question their own beliefs and "do not hold a firm ideological position."
That doesn't mean this group is confused, the researchers say. They just embrace uncertainty.
4) Anti-theist
This group regularly speaks out against religion and religious beliefs, usually by positioning themselves as "diametrically opposed to religious ideology," Silver and Coleman wrote.
"Anti-theists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental," the researchers wrote. "The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions."
Anti-theists are outspoken, devoted and – at times – confrontational about their disbelief. They believe that "obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another."
5) Non-theist
The smallest group among the six are the non-theists, people who do not involve themselves with either religion or anti-religion.
In many cases, this comes across as apathy or disinterest.
"A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion," Silver and Coleman wrote. "Religion plays no role or issue in one's consciousness or worldview; nor does a Non- Theist have concern for the atheist or agnostic movement."
They continue: "They simply do not believe, and in the same right, their absence of faith means the absence of anything religion in any form from their mental space."
6) Ritual atheist
They don't believe in God, they don't associate with religion, and they tend to believe there is no afterlife, but the sixth type of nonbeliever still finds useful the teachings of some religious traditions.
"They see these as more or less philosophical teachings of how to live life and achieve happiness than a path to transcendental liberation," Silver and Coleman wrote. "For example, these individuals may participate in specific rituals, ceremonies, musical opportunities, meditation, yoga classes, or holiday traditions."
For many of these nonbelievers, their adherence to ritual may stem from family traditions. For others, its a personal connection to, or respect for, the "profound symbolism" inherent within religious rituals, beliefs and ceremonies, according the researchers