But then, I'm an atheist.
The need to classify atheists must be very strong! Wonder why.

like that.
There is another thread today in religion that purports to prove, via a study, that atheists are narcissistic and other bad things.
I guess I find studies about atheists weird, as if theists are looking for some sort of thing they can fix.
But then I find studies about why gay people are gay to be weird, too, as if a reason needed to be found - which IMO is one step away from Marcus Bachman's stuff. Don't think gay people need a reason to be gay, don't think atheists need to be studied as a group.

Christopher Silver of the Free Thought Association.

It has nothing to do with being gay or Marcus Bachman.

I know that study has nothing to do with being gay or Bachman, I was trying (unsuccessfully, it seems) to draw a parallel with other "studies" I find strange.

at least the number of people willing to "come out" as atheists, there is a need to understand that their may be a spectrum of non-belief, just as their is for belief.

There have been some very vocal, activist atheists that don't represent all. There are groups within atheism that are identifying themselves as somehow different - like "new" atheists and atheist+. There are those who want to attend group meetings that are similar in some ways to church services, and those that clearly do not.

I think the recognition of diversity will lead to wider understanding and acceptance.

Much of the drive for classification is coming from the non-believing community.

...as pointed out in the article ("includes those who are spiritual&quot , but ignored in both the poll question asked and in the conclusion (non-religious don't like non-religious). Which makes this conclusion problematic. "Nones," by and large, include people who believe in something--be it a divinity, Jesus, or just that there is some spiritual "oneness" to the universe. They are "nones" because they don't belong to any organized religion (hence, they check off "none" when asked "What religion do you belong to?&quot . That is not the same as atheist, meaning "non-religious" (not a believer).

Now, maybe...MAYBE those who do not belong to an organized religion wish that they could--maybe they think that this "none" state isn't good--like it isn't good to be homeless, but that's the way it is until someone builds affordable homes. But the question as asked seems to say, "What do you think of the rise of non-believers?" And wouldn't BELIEVERS (most "nones&quot disapprove of this? Which would make the poll not only wrong in it's conclusion, but wrong in its thesis (that there is a rise in "non-religious&quot . There is a significant rise in those not belonging to organized religions--but has there really been that significant a rise in atheism? I'm not so sure of that.

I'm betting that, like gays in our society, the number of atheists is pretty much the same (maybe a little higher) as always. The only difference between atheism in the past and now, like gays, is that atheists are more visible and outspoken and making a stink in the courts rather than remaining silent and invisible. As always, when a minority makes noise, everyone thinks there is more of them then there is, and that they're going to take over. Which is never true--but it causes a lot of panic and polls like this appear

I have a suspicion that this is just another "god is dead on Time Magazine" bit of news. Over-wrought, full of strum-and-drang and very likely bogus.

they reject the concept that one must attend church/temple/etc to be good.

They see the value of their faith though living, not through a the authority of a "man of the cloth".

Many are leaving the church because of the judgmental crap. Those would be the folks unhappy with being a "none". And that is understandable.
When you tell a young person that really good people go to Hell if they don't belong to this religion then you just muddied the issue of good and bad.

I think the reason for categorizing the atheists is for marketing reasons. Those who stopped believing may be brought back but those who just too smart are a hopeless case. Thus there is no need to spend marketing dollars on the over educated, book reading, freedom loving atheist.

could be "over educated." I was always under the impression that as one gains knowledge one realizes that there is much more to learn. How one applies that knowledge is altogether another matter.

I don't think one can be over educated either, but one could possible think their education was "over" others, if you know what I mean.

but I had to make the point. I may have seen the other post but it did not register at the time or I would have responded to the other person's post instead of yours.

As far as someone thinking their education is "over" others, that just makes them arrogant. I have experienced that directly and it is a conversation stopper with me. I was a consultant in the pharmaceutical industry for 20 years w/o a PhD so I know that scenario. On the other hand those who have less education than others can also be defensive and condescending, such as our friends from the religious right.

Some of the most well informed people I know are without formal education.

And then there are all the people that get their "facts" from dubious internet sites and consider themselves knowledgable.

To me, the hallmark of being really knowledgable is the ability to critically analyze data or other information.

As a pharmaceutical consultant, you probably ran into a lot of people who hadn't a clue how to do that (or couldn't be bothered).

is what you get called by the non reading folks.

"When you tell a young person that really good people go to Hell if they don't belong to this religion then you just muddied the issue of good and bad."

Going to a church and subsidizing their way of life has nothing with being a good person.

It is not a study of atheists per se.

This is the article's author's take on it:

...anything to do with atheism or religion or "nones." I was offering a comparison. When gays stopped hiding and became far more visible, most people thought (wrongly) that the percentage of gays had increased. It had not; it's just that in most people's lives gays had kept quiet and invisible, and so everyone thought they were rare. Ditto with atheists. When a minority--ANY minority--becomes more visible, vocal, taking cases to court, getting in the news, etc. etc. they come across as larger in number than they are.

I brought this up because if atheists were still quiet and invisible, then this poll would probably not equate an increase in nones as meaning an increase in atheism (non-religious). They would assume, as it was assumed back in the '60's when a lot of young people were rejecting organized religion, that people still had a "religion" it just wasn't mainstream; that yoga or some other spiritualism had taken the place of church. My argument was that atheism's visibility creates polls like this, which equate those checking off "none" to the question of "what religion (read "organized" religion) do you belong to?" with atheism.

If I'm right, and the poll didn't distinguish between those who have a personal religion and those who are non-religious, then it's conclusion is questionable.

Why is that we always have these posts here about how bad, mean, evil atheists are? Or, how non-believers really do believe in god after all? Or blah, blah, blah?

Why?

It's simple. That's the common knowledge of the culture. It's wrong, but that doesn't stop people from believing it when it gets said from pulpits across the nation, portrayed in news stories in the newspapers and on the televisionary set. Or, blah, blah, blah!

Now we have a poll (from Pew, naturally) which says atheists are having a sad because atheism is increasing.

Boo Hoo!

That's it!!! Atheists really think we need more religion in the world.

Rubbish! Utter fucking rubbish!

And then talks about nones who may be spiritual, or believers who do not attend church. They're bundled in with the non-believers. Atheists are non-believers, too.

Typical way these stories are spun, which is part of my continual complaints about these stories.

I don't mind that they're posted here. But I find it very sad that this is how non-believers are portrayed in the USA.

It just shows that atheists have a lot of work to do before we get accepted. The stereotypes run deep in the culture.

Does Pew group in non church going believers in with other non-religious?

Apparently so, from what I can see. That skews things.

IMHO, lumping those and spiritual in with non-believers is a profound mistake in methodology if one desires to find out anything about non-believers.

That's just yet another reason to dislike Pew polls on religion, I suppose.

It can include atheists, agnostics, spiritual but not religious, the apathetic, and so on.

Given all the attention to "the Rise of the Nones", I think this survey tries to capture the opinion of various groups to this social phenomenon.

In truth, no one, not the organized religionists, not the unorganized spirituals, not the atheists, not the indifferent, can lay claim to this group.

That's what I believe Mehta was getting at: that the disaffiliation phenomenon presents an opportunity for explicit atheist growth.

But he's a devout Seventh Day Adventist. Yet Pew would group him with me because he would answer the questions as a spiritual person. He's a super nice guy, but he probably privately thinks I am evil and going to hell because I am a non-believer.
His religious beliefs are pretty damned conservative.

Politically conservative but very much into health and they run a large hospital system in Loma Linda.

I went to one of their stop smoking weeklong programs some years ago. It was run by a Seventh Day Adventist doctor and I stayed for the whole week. Unfortunately six days later I started smoking again. They were very nice people but it was the worst thirteen days of my life.

The term "non-religious" doesn't come across as "no organized religion" but rather as "not religious at all" meaning atheist. The poll may have mentioned that "nones" can be spiritual, but it didn't get across that the majority of those polled do have a belief in something.

Which is to say, as the poll can be all too easily misunderstood, it not only will be misunderstood, but will be waved about in churches as indicating that most "atheists" are anti-atheist--because those waving the poll know it's unclear and that they can easily put that spin on it. Heck, it's being misunderstood right here an now, isn't it? And we're presumably a tad bit more aware than those who want to believe that a rise in atheism will bring about the apocalypse.

The poll should have done a better job making clear who it was polling and what, exactly, they think of there being more believers who are not part of an organized religion (which, I agree, is a very different question from "what do you think of there being more atheists/agnostics&quot .

don't really deserve, and then slam others who do the same thing. It 's like human nature.

Does this actually matter to anyone?

still believe religion to be "good."

Hardly ground breaking.

It appears the Pew Research Group definition of “nonreligious” is entirely to imprecise. One can be “religious,” identify with a religion (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) but not necessarily a particular sect of said religion but per Pew they would be classified as “nonreligious.” One could be a deist, atheist, agnostic or “other” but again, they don’t or won’t split them out. I don’t think the way they classify “nonreligious” is correct and that could lead to biases in their data analysis. There could also be deliberate bias in the way they classify “nonreligious” to keep the waters muddy.

They are talking about the "nones".

That term was coined when the first survey came out about religious affiliation where there was a marked increase in those that answered "none".

They were clear at the time that this included both believers and non-believers.

To call this group "non-religious" is not just inaccurate but very misleading.

While I think there needs to be further breakdown within that group to understand who actually populates it, it is very confusing to change the terms at this point.