Tucson Atheists Message Board › Non-believer typology

Non-believer typology

Eric L.
Saint David, AZ
Post #: 2
Freethought AZ board appears inactive, so here I am. Just wanted to share a study of interest by a couple of sociologists studying non-believers which necessitated having more than one label to apply. They came up with six. Comments include "I'm a 1,2,4 atheist."

My response would be along the lines "I'm a 1-6 non-believer and anything less indicates a failure of disbelief." So a seventh type might be 'all the above' or super-atheist. Others will want to add more.


Patrick S.
Tucson, AZ
Post #: 9
Interesting article, thanks for posting it. I'd already seen the CNN article via the link Mitchell posted on 31 famous atheists, it was good to read the source.

Sadly, the art of proofreading seems to be dying, there are a few glaring errors that I hope are just typos (eg transverse where I think they meant traverse).

But my real comment is that they don't talk about sample bias at all. They say that Non-Theists are the smallest group. This may be true for their sample but I suspect that they may actually be the largest group of atheists. Non-Theists won't volunteer for surveys so will be under represented. Conversely, Anti-Theists and Intellectual Atheists will be over represented.

Further, as they do comment, the study took place in the Southeast which I think it not really representative of Atheism in the US as a whole. As they say, "further study is required"!
Gregg C.
user 32918712
Tucson, AZ
Post #: 10
There are always been gramma and speling errors unless 1 culd afford a proofreader.

And there are as many categories of disbelief as there are individuals -- even within doctrine bound religions. Labeling the category does little without supporting data on how to communicate with that group to assure that an adequate number of individuals can gain understanding of where they fall in the listing -- and how open or closed they are to the work it takes to discover how and what the other listed categories tend to think.

While this, like so many ideals, is not an impractical task, it is an arduous route with very distant and foggy goals. Distant and foggy goals are very hard to fund.
Jeff G.
user 64220452
Tucson, AZ
Post #: 9
Read the original news report- don't have access to the original study. The study seemed adequate enough to establish the point that the class of people who say they are nones, atheists or some related term are not monolithic in their beliefs. Not that there were serious prior doubts about that. The authors were not interested in doing what Gregg mentions... establishing lines of communication, though I understand Gregg's point.

The validity and rigor of the six categories is hard to judge without more info on the study design but I'm skeptical those will hold up. Those psychological tests used: how well were they previously validated; the details of the questions used in the survey; pre-tested? and how were the results were analyzed statistically. The entire sample was ca 1500 people selected by a dodgy method. Hsub0 that and you have ca 250 per category.. getting a bit thin. Circles back to asking if the original question was worth the effort.

At best a start at characterizing us NONES as a complex, non-uniform group in personal characteristics, political, social, ethical, positions etc.. BTW, I'm missing you guys.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy