Religion and Atheism

[Loopy Grumpkins]

A few weeks ago I made this chart of the "degrees of religion."

I apologize for the angle. If you have Microsoft PowerPoint, you can see a better version at the link below-

Degrees of Religion Chart.ppt

Just to clarify, a "Happy" Atheist is someone who is okay with other people being religious. Therefore, for most "Happy" Atheists, atheism is not a very big part of their lives. The same goes for "Happy" Religious People except with religion.

"Ambivalent" People are people who are okay with other people being atheists or  religious people, but if someone condemns their beliefs, they will defend their own beliefs.

Antitheists are people who want to completely destroy religion and won't rest until everyone on the planet is an atheist. Zealots are the exact same thing, only devoutly religious.

Conversionists are people who want to convert everyone else to their beliefs.

Cultists are extremely religious and view themselves as being above "non-believers" but don't really go out of their way to convert (I know that this isn't a conventional definition.)

Extremists view all "non-believers"  as being beyond saving and want to destroy everyone who doesn't think like they do.

 For the later three, it should be noted that these can be on both zealot and antitheist  sides.

The moderate category is made up of non-practicing religious people and agnostics.

There is also a separate bubble that I didn't include which is made up of all the people who just don't care about religion or atheism at all.

There may be other categories which I haven't thought of or I was just too lazy to include so please feel free to inform me about those. So, tell me what you think of the chart and where you place on it.

[leo]

i have 2 points.

firstly, i do not see the point of the "moderate" category.
"People are people who are okay with other people being atheists or religious people, but if someone condemns their beliefs, they will defend their own beliefs." so far, the "happy" members of either atheist or theist categories fit into this.

"The moderate category is made up of non-practicing religious people and agnostics."
Well, i might just be being pedantic, but for clarities sake, agnostics are atheists because they are not theists. That is all the word atheist means.

So for an accurate breakdown of theistic and atheistic beliefs, you should get rid of the moderate section and create some new sections under atheist and theist.

However, it may be argued that agnostics should be listed separately, because when someone says "atheist" they almost always mean someone who is neither theist nor agnostic.

This is a point that ought to be clarified at the beginning of every discussion on either religion or atheism.

I think this point depends on the purpose of the diagram.

My second point is merely that a better word for "conversionist" is "evangelical".

apart from that, good work.

[Loopy Grumpkins]

Then should non-practicing religious people be a separate category like the agnostics, but closer to the religious side? or should they be included in the religious category?

[leo]

depends on the purpose of the table.

if we are going to be very strict about it, agnostics should be in the atheist section, because they are not theists, and non-practising theists should be in the theist section, because they are still theists.

[Beckoneko]

Although moderate acts like a miscellaneous here. It would also include people who simply don't think about religion, or don't know about it. Thus they can not lean one way or the other because it is not part of their mindset. Unless you count them as "happy atheists"

[Terry]

Well, extremists are just people who take there religion to extremes, like they believe in Christ but don't follow his laws. The anti theists is actually just called anti-clerical.
I guess I'm not fully Ambivalent but I'm slightly more outspoken than happy.

[Loopy Grumpkins]

I prefer to use the term antitheist because anti-clerical seems to be more against organized religion than religion in general. So I would propose a new category under antitheism.

[EliteBRAN42]

I'm Ambivalent. Religion is important ot me, but if someone comdemns my beliefs, I would stand up for them unwaveringly.

Also, what's your place on the chart?

[Loopy Grumpkins]

My place on the chart really depends on how you look at the moderate category. I'm not worried about religion right now, so I could place in the very center of the moderate category or in a bubble outside of the chart.

[Neiloy Mukerjee]

Would this chart imply that theism and atheism are distinct in nature? That seems to be the impression conveyed, but perhaps that's just for lack of understood definitions (such as "agnostic," as mentioned earlier, and even such broad terms as "theism" and "atheism"). Still, it seems that within each theism and atheism, you have categories that range from a low intensity ("happy") to a high intensity ("antitheists" or "zealotry").

Also, it seems that while the subcategories within atheism follow along the scale, the subcategories within theism seem to describe the same set - but perhaps this is just me misunderstanding the graphics.

[James]

I'm not sure I'd fit perfectly into any one of these categories. I'm agnostic, in that I don't believe you can either prove (and therefore rationally believe in) or disprove a god or gods, which would put me in the moderate section. However, I also consider myself 'ambivalently' anti-religion.
If you're going to update your chart based on nerdfighter comments, you may want to differentiate between atheists and those without/against religion.

[Beckoneko]

I am ambivalent religious. I follow Christ's teaching of acceptance of all, but will defend or share my faith when solicited. Besides, evangelizing works better when you teach by example rather than badgering people verbally.

[kala_way]

What I'd question in the chart are the terms "happy" and "ambivalent"
I think you can technically be happy in any of these categories, and if happy is only in reference to how they respond to others religiosity, then perhaps Non-Confrontational would be a better term.
Also, being ready to defend your beliefs against attack is the opposite of ambivalent IMO. Maybe guardians (guarding or resisting or defending) would work better.