Is it that they don't even waste enough time thinking about it? That they are too intellectually lazy to qualify as agnostic?

It's very unnerving for many believers to try and cope with the fact that belief is declining. Given the behavior of leading religious authors, theologians, and on down to behavior I observe on DU, it's a constant battle within themselves to justify their beliefs. Having a group of people around who not only reject those beliefs but are also increasing in number daily is highly disturbing.

One way to cope with that fact is to tell oneself that they are really just rejecting religious institutions, not religious belief, that belief in god will be A-OK, they just need to find new ways to express it and organize around it. In other words, "No no, you loudmouth atheists, you aren't 'winning,' these 'Nones' still want to believe, they just reject your evil label!"

question about being affiliated with a particular religious group. So it includes all kinds of people, some of whom are self-identified theists.

Ahh, I get it. So when more and more are selecting "None", religious people want to pretend they are confused theists instead of scary atheists/agnostics.

shows a wide variety of people, including believers and non-believers.

There are also atheists claiming that these nones are really confused atheists instead of scary theists.

They are mistaken as well.

There are lots of articles on this (including this one).

This question should be a fill in the blank. If someone can't come up with an answer, we should assume a rock was erroneously polled.


Its bad enough thinking all these years I've been being lumped in with atheists. Now Im also in the confused/non-comittal/intellectually-lazy theists group?

There is a lot to be learned from them - why they are unaffiliated, where they fall on the spectrum of belief/non-belief, what kinds of things they are looking for that might be substituting for religious affiliation.

I haven't seen much discussion of them being confused, non-comittal or intellectual lazy.

It tells you absolutely nothing about the sub-groupings of the all too general clumping. In a world that still thinks its useful to differentiate between Protestants and Baptists, you are telling me that its a good idea to group atheists with unaffiliated theists who are worlds further apart? Absurd.

Agnostics and atheists are not "unaffiliated" in the sense that unaffiliated theists are. There is no group to entertain being affiliated to, as there is nothing resembling their conception of truth as it is known to man.

groups.

That's what polling and some scientific studies do.

In most of these surveys, there is an option to identify as atheist/agnostic/non-believer. It is the group that identifies as "none" or "unaffiliated" that that this addresses.

The question is not, however, "are you religious". It is, "what group do you affiliate with". As noted in the article, some atheists/agnostics don't want to be affiliated with the group name for whatever reason.

If it is of no use to you, just ignore it.

When you start lumping those who believe in a specific deity like an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God (theistic conception) with people who have committed to a belief that Gods absolutely do not exist, then you are actively engaging in pointless nonsense that I will ignore.

on edit: though, I think your entire premise and the None propaganda is just wishful, bullshit thinking that doesn't reflect what is actually happening.

"an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God", and you do them a disservice when you lump them all together.

And many atheists are far from committed to an absolute belief (or disbelief, as it may be).

But if lumping works for you in those cases, then lump. And if it doesn't work for you in others, then ignore it.

Since there are presently a substantial number of articles being written about nones in highly reputable places, I think you give me way too much credit for this being my premise, lol.

Now, I guess we are finished, as we generally are when someone starts calling my POV wishful, bullshit thinking.

See you around the campfire.

Maybe they are "deists" abscribing more to the Absentee Landlord conception of a higher being, rather than a personal, involved deity.

But if you are willing to lump them in with agnostics and atheists, I highly doubt you really care about the particulars of their belief structure (or lack thereof in the case of the agnostics). Rather, it seems you just want one big fuzzy group that you can feel is partially redeemable, even though they have less in common with each other than the separate Catholics do with the Presbyterians.

then ignore it

If it doesn't impinge on the rights of others and works for them, I'm pretty comfortable with letting people believe or not believe whatever they want. If they use their beliefs to attack others or restrict their rights, I do have a problem.

And I do want one big fuzzy group to the extent it is possible. I participate on this site because I feel that I am among people who hold similar views on issues which I think are important. The better we get along, and the less we allow our opponents to divide and conquer (a tactic they have used with great success for a very long time), the more likely we are to achieve the goals we share.

I fail to see a problem with that.

Then shouldn't we just ask in surveys:

A. Belong to formal Church
B. Don't belong to a formal Church

So basically we start lumping the non-Nones into one big, useless group as well. It might even be better to just change it to:

I am a:

A. Human

is going to be further explored in order to get more specific data on who is answering that question.

Being just a human is fine, unless one is interested in looking at and studying the variety of humans that populate this planet.

What seems to be increasingly clear is that you don't want to be grouped with believers in any way, shape or form. That's ok. They probably have a "none of the above" option in any survey you might take.

In any case, if we don't allow more boxes and we just create big general groups, it makes articles about the growth of those heterogeneous groups less and less meaningful and relevant.

a need to create more and different boxes.

Is it labeling people to call them Democrats, even if they don't agree with every single plank in the party platform?

Sociologists love to study statistical data from various questioners.

But what use are these stats when we are talking about a supposed "group" consisting of:

1. People who reject the notion that a diety exists
2. People who reject the notion that man can know whether a diety exists and what its nature is
3. People who accept a diety exists but do not know what its nature is
4. People who accept a diety exists and that it is theistic, but reject organized theistic religions (or even general branches like "Non-Denominational Christian&quot .
5. People who have all sorts of other types of non-organized religious beliefs.

Traditionally, "Agnostic/Atheist/Non-Believer" referred to the top two, but now this new trendy "None" movement means the growth in this group represents God fearing believers who just don't like singing in the choir?

If you believe you have an invisible best friend in the sky, then I don't think its unusual to believe this "grouping" makes perfect sense and we can learn a ton from it. A counter explanation is that the top two (atheists/agnostics) are continuing to grow and people are pretending that its just confused theists who don't find pews comfortable anymore.

Grant for further study of the make-up that group.

Does every cultural/social question require consideration?

By tautology. At some point in one's life, questions about existence, science, religion, etc, more or less should be relevant. If someone never asks, "why am I here" or even "must there be a reason to be here" or "what is reason" or "what am I", they are either intellectually lazy or a tree. Are you a tree?

Does every cultural/social question require consideration?

...not because I'm "lazy" because it's not a relevant question. I -am- here. I lead my life in a reality-based world that has never shown any sign of having a "purpose" other than those I impose on myself, or which society imposes on me. In the absence of evidence of anything "higher", why do you determine its my or your responsibilty to investigate whether such evidence exists?

Have you just read and accepted these somewhere or arrived at them through thought?

"I -am- here" - How do you know?
"in a reality-based world" - How did you determine it to be so?
"has never shown any sign of having a "purpose"" - Did you determine this?
"In the absence of evidence of anything "higher"" - Who told you there was no evidence if you've never pondered it?

To me, it sounds like you have already thought of these questions previously, unless your entire conception of reality is copy/pasted from a book you read.

1. I'm here because I experience myself being here. Whether that's reality or a disembodied mind is irrelevant, because this is reality as it presents itself to me. Engaging in solipsism won't change that, so what would be achieved by wasting time thinking about it?

2. See 1. The world (as I experience it) following understood laws and principles (gravity, biology, chemistry) while showing no sign of metaphysical or supernatural behavior. Again, I see no reason to waste time pondering whether (absent the evidence presented) it is otherwise, since the otherwise, if it exists, has no apparent effect on me.

3. I did not, for the same reason I have never determined absolutely that God/s do not exist. Since I have encountered neither God nor a "higher purpose" having an influence on me or expectation of me, I see no need to investigate the matter, any more that I see the need to investigate whether ugglecks exist.

4. See 3. I also do not need to "ponder" whether gravity exists; I experience it. Academic evidence has also been presented to me that it exists. I may (but do not) choose to ponder HOW it manifests itself, what causes it and how it might change, but then, I'm not a physicist. Why am I obliged to consider IF something higher exists if I do not observe or experience it.

While I'm partial to the Box Elder, I am also inclined to answer: all of them, at once. But even more so, I am also every tree at once, and also everything, and my separation--as an individual entity--from all arrangements of matter is likely illusional and a product of ethnocentricism.

We are not just trees, but also the whole of forest.

but I think of myself as a Mesquite.

"Eradicating mesquite is difficult because the plant's bud regeneration zone can extend down to 6 in (150 mm) below ground level;[4][5] the tree can regenerate from a piece of root left in the soil.[4] Some herbicides are not effective or only partially effective against mesquite. Spray techniques for removal, while effective against short-term regrowth, are expensive, costing upwards of $70/acre ($170/hectare). Removing large trees requires tracked equipment; costs can approach $2,000 per acre."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesquite

And http://navitasnaturals.com/product/469/Mesquite-Powder.html

Obviously, British Isle Druids are not the best source on Native American plants. It was fun test for me, as I have special relation with Alder, and the test gave I tie and one more choice, and my first answer to that question gave another tree (related to teaching), name of which I already forgot.

and they give many gifts. Here we have custom of collecting and drinking birch sap in the spring, very sweet and healthy. A youthful, springy tree.

I am most fortunate to have people in my life who appreciate me the way I am and are able to find my sap.

and a term fraught with cultural baggage as the article says.

Nones are the future and we may at last be able to lose the yoke of religion.

Have they been too rational in their reluctance to affirm belief as truth?

The only reason people have no cultural baggage toward the term "Nones" (explained to me to include non-believers and bumbling theists) is that no one knows what the hell anyone is referring to. I guarantee you that the more inane articles that are written about this great wonderful group of *everyone except church goers, including bumbling theists*, the more annoyed we all become with the concept (which is being used to perpetuate the myth that people are growing non-religious rather than atheistic).

The entire None thing is a fraud from my perspective (and hey, I've just started seeing this ridiculous term)

It's intriguing to me. I label myself atheist since I had a religious upbringing and I actively work to reject years of programming. You are applying labels to the nones perhaps because you are unable to believe that something wholly interesting and new is arising. There are generations of people now who weren't inundated with religion and that has to lead to something.

And it's insulting that you wave your arms around and bray like you're some authority on the subject and have the corner on absolute truth.

After I came to terms with being gay I began considering my sexual orientation as a gift. And I think it applies to this topic since religion reinforces a set of norms and behaviors. When you're siting on the outside of dominant society looking in, I believe you may notice things that people may not even think about from day to day.

And maybe this is what some of the nones are doing. Considering belief or non belief is a waste of time. Why should they even bother? I have to say - I'm a little jealous of that.

aside from eating, screwing and shitting is a "waste of time".

Man has wasted thousands of years of time erecting constructs that dictate how we live our lives and perceive reality. To get beyond those, it may in fact require a little time wasting to make sense of it and get past the garbage.

I use the label 'atheist' because it means that I go along with those who do not see evidence for existence of gods or supernatural effects.

But I also have no religion because I do not believe anything on faith. My beliefs are based on evidence and are always subject to modification if new evidence surfaces. These means that I accept no religions as valid beliefs. So I could also answer a survey such as described in the article as a 'none'.

The interesting thing about this group is it's diversity, imo. It includes all kinds of believers and non-believers.

Interesting housemates, to be sure.

I find myself more in agreement with the people here in the Religion forum. But, I have no problem with believers in general as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others. I do not include having a discussion with a theist as violating that. My hopefully tactful arguments are not aimed to convert, but merely to help people understand. I would hope theists would do the same.

This way we can learn from each other, always a way to become friends.

I am also interested in identifying more of what believers and non-believers have in common than what their differences may be.

And the more I look, the more I find.

You have been a real asset to this community, imo, and I value your participation.

"Being an atheist" means I've taken a stand. I haven't. I don't care. I'm apathetic on the subject. I used to call myself "agnostic" and argue over the differences between "agnostic" and "atheist". But more recently I just don't care what people call themselves, or what they call me. I don't call myself anything any more. I just don't think about it much.

I'm a new category: "religiously apathetic".

Oh, I guess that means I do call myself something. Whatever. I don't care.

While some people want to be identified with a group, many (and an increasing number) don't.

What is interesting to me is how others will label you even when you resist a label. It sometimes feels like recruitment to me and it makes some people angry or frustrated when others refuse the labels.

That being said, I don't really experience you as apathetic, based on your participation in this group. Perhaps neutral, but not apathetic.

Weird.

The resistance to "none means none" strikes me as similar to the resistance to "no means no."

Either with us or against us works so poorly in my estimation.

Also the apparently overwhelming need to drag someone else into a situation against that someone else's will.

targets that outrage at others who don't share that outraged emotion. The collective aspects of feelings are fascinating.

if you really needed label then I would say agnostic, but when it comes to these matters I'm really just 'live and let live'. As long you what you believe doesn't seek to exploite or harm others I don't care

No matter how much they may or may not like the cultural baggage. Insisting that you're above labels just adds the label "pretentious" to whatever other labels apply.

Don't believe in gods? You're an atheist. Don't know if you're right or not? Agnostic. Believe in gods? Theist. Certain you're correct for whatever reason? Gnostic. Between the four they cover all possible definitions. Agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, gnostic atheist.

That said I really don't care what other people call themselves, as long as they don't object to the rest of us rolling our eyes when they defy our oppressive system of classification, maaan!

It has to do with religious affiliation. It's explained pretty well in the article.