Academic, 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 religion’s 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 atheist’s 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. It’s not just atheist-related issues they’re 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 it’s 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
= new reply since forum marked as read
From the study:
Given that the South is the Bible Belt, I wonder of the percentages, by type, are representative of the entire country.
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.
