Researchers at the University of Tennessee have investigated different kinds of atheists and arrived at a typology, to be found at this site:
The study does not seem profound to me or even that illuminating and at one point it appears to define ontology as "the search for truth," which is wrong. A typology should be complete and the types should be clearly distinguished from each other, but I find that several of the categories would apply to my own views.
Addendum. I forgot to mention that the numbers in the regional differences do not seem to be correct. In the South each of the six categories contains 45% or more of those surveyed. That cannot be correct if the categories are exclusive.
I agree. Too fuzzy. Categories overlap.
I think everybody at A/N would agree with "antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions." Maybe I'm wrong.
Also, no disrespect, I don't understand "seekers." By a certain age, you should have figured out which side you're on, and you decide to "live as if" God does (or does not) exist).
(1) atheist/antitheist/"ignostic" (doesn't care, doesn't worry about it,
(1a) work in progress - trying to free oneself from childhood religious programmming
(2) uncommitted (agnostic; allows social observance of religious customs)
(3) pretend believers (liberal Jews and Christians; social observance of religious customs)
(4) true believers (sequestered and prolific; invested in psychotic fantasies; driven nuts by trying to manage the cognitive dissonance between religious fantasy and scientific reality; includes a few rebels/apostates who dare not reveal themselves).
I can't figure out where I fit in, in the classification. I guess there needs to be a category, "something else / some of the above / none of the above"
Just as with the current Congress, we can pretty much write off this one.
>> I find that several of the categories would apply to my own views.
This is the problem with attempting to catagorize people into neat little labled boxes. You can not simplify something as complex as a person's belief system. It's not surprising to me, this "study" was conducted in Tennessee, in the heart of ignorance-ameriKKKa, the bible belt.
Reading the website, I think it was well meant. He is with the area Freethought Association. I wouldn't want to be a freethinker living in Tennessee or anywhere in the traditional South and several other places.
But I do think atheist defies categorization. Or there would be so many categories, it would make the zodiac appear simple in comparison. I saw myself as primarily intellectual, but without some of the behaviors described. For example, I don't "belong to groups that meet face to face offline such as various skeptic, rationalist and freethinking groups" or many other aspects of his description. If I lived in Tennessee..... maybe. Similarly, I don't engage people in activist activities, although I might if I didn't work 60 to 80 hours a weeks for most of my life. Similarly for the antitheist description, although I do feel a lot of antipathy toward religion and religionists.
And, for our next study, the categorization of people who don't pay attention to American professional football.
Living in Tennessee myself, I wouldn't give two cents for anything anyone at UT had to say about atheism. My guess is that 99.999999999 % of everyone at UT is a fundamentalist Christians with an agenda.