What kind of atheist are you?

There wasn't much you could have taught me about the Guides when I was fourteen!

Well, some non-religious people did set up alternative movements, such as Woodcraft Folk.

But the point is that scouting and guiding are not religious organisations. The Baden-Powells' idea was to encourage ethical behaviour and meaningful reflection whatever you do. That's a good approach for anyone, religious or not.

Oh, thank you for that. Intelligent debate alive and well then.

Yes. I should have said non-religious.

It is that kind of old fogey, ill-informed opinion that has delayed the current improvements to the scout and guide movements.

They were not founded on christian principles. The principles they were founded on are universal.

jings, the scout and guide movements never discriminated against non-christians. They discriminated against non-religious people. There's and important difference.

Also, they receive money from public bodies (e.g. not having to pay a standard rent for the council accommodation they use) so they are not entitled to discriminate against any kind of person.

They are global movements and became so very quickly after their inception. Which is part of their appeal, of course.

The ethical side of their programme will not suffer as a result of allowing non-religious people to be proper members.

Aren' t percentages supposed to add up to 100?

Bags do you like being fondly patted on the head?

I think what most of us are saying is 'Live and let live'. I am quite happy to hear about other people's religious beliefs, simply because I am interested in the way people arrive at them. My religious friends know I don't share their beliefs, but they also know that I would vigorously defend their right to hold them and practise them. They accord me the same respect. I wouldn't like to limit my friendship circle to people who shared all my beliefs - but perhaps to those who share my own values.

Yes, I'm another Apathetic Atheist. Sounds good to me.

Re the Scouts and Guides, I think it is a great shame that. such old and well loved associations have been tampered with because of the politically correct views of the few. They were founded with a Christian ethos and should have remained so.

Why couldn't non-Christians form their own clubs?

I share Bags' view. I discuss it because it's here on the forum and what others say sparks my interest, so I will read a little more on the topic. Positively apathetic the rest of the time, but if my views are invited, I share them.

I am an apathetic atheist which I think is correct. As long as people are happy with their beliefs and don't try to impose them on me then that is fine as far as I am concerned.

Same here. I have been an activist secularist within the Scout Association. They and the Girl Guide movement have made some significant steps forward recently because of secularist activism of which I was a very small part. None of us were arguing against religion; we were arguing for fairness regardless of religion – completely regardless as to membership. Or, in other words, non-discriminatory.

Well said Bags and Greatnan. Although I have to say I've never come across defensive attitudes from those with a religious belief in real life. Apathy is much more common! Perhaps I mix in the wrong circles.

I don't know how I could be an active atheist as I have no wish to change anybody else's beliefs. However, I would like to be an active secularist and I think many people don't realise the difference! My sole concern with religion, other than finding it fascinating to see what and why others believe, is that the views of any religious faction should be imposed on the whole population by law.
I don't know why anybody with a firm religious belief should feel the need to be defensive when people don't share it. I don't mind people not being atheists!

I read the article. Then I wondered, since I didn't seem to fit into any of the categories it defined: why the need for such categorisation? Then I re-read and found this:

If prejudice continues to exist towards atheists in general, one source may stem from the perceived negative experiences by religious people interacting with a very small sub-segment of the overall population of non-believers, mainly the Anti-Theists. In other words, our research showed over 85% of the non-believers sampled to be more or less your “average Joe” when it came to being “angry, argumentative and dogmatic”, they fall right in line with current societal norms, nothing strange here - sorry non-believers, you’re pretty normal when it comes to being psychologically well-adjusted.

I imagine that some members of GN think I'm an activist atheist. What they don't know is that gransnet is the only place I talk about atheism. And that's because the gransnet forums are talk forums, for talking about stuff that interests you, including stuff, like atheism, that you don't get to talk about anywhere else except in your own head.

Besides, theism/atheism is a more intellectually stimulating subject than many. That's part of its appeal. It's a good subject for debate – plenty to chew over.

Apparently I'm a scientific atheist. Too early and hot for the University of Tennessee!

Try this one

www.atheismresearch.com

Bags...you're such a lovely clever clogs... x

It just demonstrates that these are for fun only. Some of the questions are ambiguous, and the title implies that you should only answer if you fit the criteria of atheist or christian in the first place. Whoever compiled them doesn't understand how to devise a research questionnaire. At least we all know that the good qualities we have aren't reliant on religion or lack of it.

I had to have a tie beaker and still came out as:

71% Agnostic

71% Apathetic Atheist

71% Meditative Atheist

So now am just confused!

I think you are supposed to answer the questions without too much thought, a kind of gut reaction.

I had assumed those percentages referred to everyone doing the test!!