Take the Sociology? research on what category people chose.
They can chose if they see themselves a Catholic or Baptist
or any of the other known big denominations of Christian faith?
The they realize that some want to non-affiliate themselves
so they create the category Non-affiliated and that one get
many supporters. Atheist and Agnostic gets rather few supporters
in these official surveys.

In another country they don’t ahve the category Non-affiliated
they have No religion would that mean it is only another name
for Non-affiliated? One would need to find a definition what the
researchers intended with these categories?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9737886/Jedi-religion-most-popular-alternative-faith.html

One category is Other and you can fill in your religion there
and two of the most popular are Jedi and Heavy Metal.

Jedi made it onto the 2001 census, with 390,127 people identifying themselves a decade ago as followers of the fictional Star Wars creed.

Although the number of Jedis has dropped by more than 50 per cent over the past 10 years, they are still the most selected “alternative” faith on the Census, and constitute 0.31% of all people’s stated religious affiliation in England and Wales.

The latest official population survey also revealed 6,242 people subscribe to the Heavy Metal religion, which was set up in 2010 by the Rock magazine, Metal Hammer.

The number of people specifically identifying as Atheists was 29,267, while over 13.8 million refused to identify with a faith at all, ticking the “No religion” box on the census form.

The Telegraph does not seem to report how many Humanists or Rationalists
there are in England so are them supposed to chose No religion instead of Atheist

Are there no Agnostics?

Has any of looked into this Science of study of self identity answering Census and Surveys?

I have no idea what to answer because I don’t know what No religion mean or refers to.

I feel that I am 100% religious in my heart but by the definition that logical atheists set up
then I am 100% atheist. Religious in Heart and anti-religious in Head. What category is that?
The category Confused Identity?

The Telegraph wild guess this:

over 13.8 million refused to identify with a faith at all,
ticking the “No religion” box on the census form.

So either they just guess or those that constructed the Census
has told them that they intended the category No religion for
those that “refuse to identify with a faith at all”

I don’t refuse I would be happy if I find a name for my religious at heart.

Fred, just to be on the safe side, you should assume that the people who chose “Jedi” and “Heavy Metal” as their religions are goofing around.

Basically, you can count them as non-believers.

Just to clarify some terminology here:

Atheist and Atheism simply deal with a single claim: “Do you believe in a god or gods?”. If you answer ‘Yes’, you’re a theist. If you answer anything else, including ‘no’, ‘don’t know’, ‘don’t care’, etc…you’re an atheist.

There’s no third option, you don’t ‘half believe’ in a god or gods. You either believe or you don’t.

Theism and Atheism are dealing with what you believe. Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with what you know (or at least what you think you know).

So you can be an agnostic atheist: someone who doesn’t believe in a god and doesn’t know if there is one.

Maybe list form would be more clear here:

Agnostic atheist: doesn’t believe in god, doesn’t know if there is one.
Gnostic atheist: doesn’t believe in god, knows there isn’t one. (this is my category for the record)
Agnostic theist: believes in god, doesn’t know if there is one.
Gnostic theist: believes in god, knows there is one.

It’s really that simple.

I recently came across someone telling me they were apatheist, and thus couldn’t be labeled an atheist. Which is silly, since all that term describes is that you don’t give a shit about the issue. It says nothing about what you actually believe or what you think you know.

One thing I’ve noticed is the habit of some people to actively trying to avoid being called atheist. Usually because they don’t want to associated with the more vocal group and also because they cling to one of the definitions of atheism, which could be argued as ‘someone who believes god doesn’t exist’. That’s consistent with a position of atheism, but not the core of it. As demonstrated above, you can not believe in a god or gods, but also be unsure whether they exist or not and reserve judgement.

mid atlantic - 13 December 2012 12:44 AM

Fred, just to be on the safe side, you should assume that the people who chose “Jedi” and “Heavy Metal” as their religions are goofing around.

Basically, you can count them as non-believers.

Yes that is maybe why they dropped 50% from 2001.
It was fun the first time and not as fun when repeated?

So you confirm that you too feel unsure of exactly what it means to have no religion?
Logically you should be able to have a God without a religion?
So those 13.8 million can all be theist but
to be without an established religion.

Maybe not likely but without a definition or explanation one have no way to know.

Robert Walper, yes I know but does that explain what they mean with No religion?

theoretically you can have on or many gods
and still belong to No religion.

I think, my personal opinion is that it is not fair
to force an apatheist into the category atheist.

They maybe are atheist by the definition you use
but they sure are apatheist seen from their definition.

Why would your definition be the one to use?

Only those who cares about gods can be atheist or theist.
Those that does not care about gods are non-theists or apatheists.

But my main interest here is what the No religion refers to.
Can it be New Age and Spiritualism and Esoteric or what else?

an atheist in England would chose atheist and not No religion.

England is very different from UsoA where one can expect a lot of
atheist that don’t dare to admit them atheist or they lose job

FredW - 13 December 2012 02:54 AM

Robert Walper, yes I know but does that explain what they mean with No religion?

Ask them.

I think, my personal opinion is that it is not fair
to force an apatheist into the category atheist.

They maybe are atheist by the definition you use
but they sure are apatheist seen from their definition.

Why would your definition be the one to use?

I’ve explained this already above. Quick example:

Someone could be an agnostic atheist apathiest: they don’t believe in a god, they don’t know if there is a god, and they don’t care about the issue either.

Those are three separate aspects about a person, and each attribute has it’s own term. Understand?

I trust I get it from your perspective there yes.
But that was not what I tried to say. Sorry!

I most likely leave now. I am not on the level
you guys expect. So Good bye

FredW - 13 December 2012 02:03 PM

I trust I get it from your perspective there yes.
But that was not what I tried to say. Sorry!

I most likely leave now. I am not on the level
you guys expect. So Good bye

You don’t have to leave because of mis - communication, Fred.

I agree that is a cop out but try to see it from my perspective.

I started to write using English around 1996 as a grown up.
No formal edu in E. so no doubt a lot of grammar error
and bad structure and unusual way of expressing my intention.

Now this many years later after having practiced writing
between 4 to 8 hours a day due to retirement and still now
daily misunderstanding of my text. It takes it toll on my sense
of self worth to never get understood. One give up on it.

No I am not better in my native tongue at all. I am even worse
at it in my own language because I think about religion in English.

All books about religion and philosophy I’ve read in English.

I have no idea what word my native language have for the
English terms that comes naturally automatically in my head.

FredW - 15 December 2012 04:38 AM

I agree that is a cop out but try to see it from my perspective.

I started to write using English around 1996 as a grown up.
No formal edu in E. so no doubt a lot of grammar error
and bad structure and unusual way of expressing my intention.

Now this many years later after having practiced writing
between 4 to 8 hours a day due to retirement and still now
daily misunderstanding of my text. It takes it toll on my sense
of self worth to never get understood. One give up on it.

No I am not better in my native tongue at all. I am even worse
at it in my own language because I think about religion in English.

All books about religion and philosophy I’ve read in English.

I have no idea what word my native language have for the
English terms that comes naturally automatically in my head.

FWIW Fred, I can understand you OK.

Your English is not so bad, so don’t give up on it!!  Remember this forum is about debate and discussion, and misunderstandings are inevitable.

There’s no third option, you don’t ‘half believe’ in a god or gods. You either believe or you don’t.

There is a variation on a theme however.

I’m of the “Don’t Know And Don’t Really Care” variety of agnostic.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 15 December 2012 08:10 PM

There’s no third option, you don’t ‘half believe’ in a god or gods. You either believe or you don’t.

There is a variation on a theme however.

I’m of the “Don’t Know And Don’t Really Care” variety of agnostic.

That makes you an agnostic apathiest. but says nothing about what you believe. I would assume atheist rather than theist in your case.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 15 December 2012 08:10 PM

There’s no third option, you don’t ‘half believe’ in a god or gods. You either believe or you don’t.

There is a variation on a theme however.

I’m of the “Don’t Know And Don’t Really Care” variety of agnostic.

Apatheism FOREVER! 

http://www.churchofapathy.org/

psik

I would assume atheist rather than theist in your case.

In that I lack a belief in any god or gods, that would be correct.

I’m not hostile to the notion that they might exist, but in the absence of any positive evidence to the effect, as far as I’m concerned, all theology is an excessively complicated soap opera discussion of nothing. (Hell, Star Wars is a more credible story then the Bible!)

What I don’t trust is anybody who specifically claims to have such knowladge. In my own highly subjective observation, such people have either been whackjobs or swindlers after people’s money. No exceptions.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 16 December 2012 07:44 AM

I would assume atheist rather than theist in your case.

In that I lack a belief in any god or gods, that would be correct.

That’s the only term of atheist I would apply, as it makes no assumptions or claims about a person other than a simple statement of non belief and says nothing else about them. An infant is an atheist by default.

I’m not hostile to the notion that they might exist, but in the absence of any positive evidence to the effect, as far as I’m concerned, all theology is an excessively complicated soap opera discussion of nothing. (Hell, Star Wars is a more credible story then the Bible!)

While I myself qualify as the ‘militant’ atheist, I’m not ‘hostile’ to the idea either. I simply reject illogical and non evidence based claims and pretty much share your exact sentiment you just stated.

What I don’t trust is anybody who specifically claims to have such knowladge. In my own highly subjective observation, such people have either been whackjobs or swindlers after people’s money. No exceptions.

I would accurately be labeled a gnostic atheist, since I would assert I know god does not exist. However, that is entirely dependent upon the specific definition of god you bring up, and also must account for the fact I’m not asserting absolute knowledge (no such thing anyhow). My knowledge on that claim is equal to my knowing that leprechauns and Santa Clause don’t exist.

I would accurately be labeled a gnostic atheist, since I would assert I know god does not exist. However, that is entirely dependent upon the specific definition of god you bring up…

Well now, that’s one of the really big problems isn’t it? Ask anybody for a defintion, what you get is so vague as to be useless.

When somebody get’s specific, all the evidence can be shown to go against it.