If you’ve followed my blog at all, you probably know that I’m not just an atheist; I’m an anti-theist. What this means, from my perspective, is that I don’t think it is a good idea to create or endorse a nonexistent authority figure that people are in any way expected to worship; I don’t just disbelieve in God — I think a belief in God is unhealthy. I also think that religion has made the space that it can be challenged WAY too restricted, and that it would help many people — especially those in the closet — if we worked to set new boundaries of where it was socially acceptable to disagree with religion.

According to the usual definition, most would think I am an anti-theist. The other side of atheism, it seems assumed, is much more tolerant of God and sees more value in theism, even if it disagrees with some aspects. They are, so the impression goes, more tolerant, more nuanced, and are often more willing to meld with religion itself.

From my vantage point, it seems in the best interest of religion to make the anti-theists as isolated as possible, as any respect afforded to religion can be used to further insulate religion from attack — religion seems to use the notion of respect to further insulate itself.

Given my view of things, it’s been no surprise to me when some (like Reza Aslan in Salon) argue that only 14.8% of atheists are anti-theists, leaving the impression that the rest of atheists either are somewhat supportive of religion, or really don’t care about it all. If you’ve been around the blogosphere lately, you may have seen that figure floating around.

But that’s not at all the case. What seems missed, oftentimes, is that the researchers were using a highly specialized definition of the term “anti-theist.”

It’s basically like this: Suppose you were an anti-babyeater (maybe that’s a stretch, but stay with me). Let’s say there was a study done, and those reporting on the study came out and said, “only 10% of people who aren’t babyeaters are anti-babyeaters.” You might think — hmm…maybe it’s not as big of a deal as we thought; apparently some people who aren’t babyeaters think babyeating is OK. But in this case, if you take a closer look, you’ll find out that the definition of “anti-babyeaters” was “people who think babyeaters are inherently stupid,” and that they had a different term, called, “pro-humanity” which was defined as, “people who support the eating of animals and think that babyeaters, although they may have some moral flaws, have some degree of intelligence.” As a result, 10% were called “anti-babyeaters” and the rest…well, although they are, according to the conventional use of the term, anti-babyeaters, they are “pro-humanity” in this study. Now, if you want to make the number of anti-babyeaters appear smaller, you can leave out the “pro-humanity” category and throw around the figure that “only 10% of people who don’t eat babies are anti-babyeaters” — which implies that there’s a LOT more support for babyeating than there actually is.

This worsens when you carry that figure into the common newspapers, blogs, books, and so on without showing that you’re talking about a special definition, especially when you do so in order to underline the fact that only 10% of individuals are anti-babyeaters, and to leave the 90% remainder under – represented.

That’s what this 2013 study from Christopher Silver of the University of Tennessee– or, rather, those covering the study — seem to do at times. When discussing anti-theism, the study didn’t use a definition like the common Rational Wiki definition, which states: “[Antitheism] is the belief that theism and religion are harmful to society and people, and that if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. Antitheism, which is often characterized as outspoken opposition to theism and religion, asserts that religious and theistic beliefs are harmful and should be discarded in favor of humanism, rationalism, and other alternatives.” It was, rather, the following:

The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, 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. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery. The Anti-Theist’s reaction to a religious devotee is often based on social and psychological maturity.

I’m surprised, after reading this, that the study found 14.8% of atheists who fit that description. And in reading this, I find myself conflicted.

I don’t see all religious people as “backward” — I think that’s a bit extreme. Some are more forward thinking in ways than I am, but are simply wrong, and it’s not the PERSON associated with religion that I detest — it’s the theistic religion. And although I think that theistic religion is dangerous, I don’t have a “clear…understanding” of it, and am open to new information. To say I think my view is superior seems disingenuous; most people (including/especially Christians) think their views are superior, but I am open to being wrong — more so, I think, than I was a Christian; that’s a label I’d want to distance myself from. I want to share my view; I don’t always feel “compelled” to do so. I think that religion CAN be aggressively addressed, and I protect the right to aggressively address it and sometimes do so myself, but I don’t insist that other atheists have to. And, finally, wouldn’t anyone’s reaction to a religious devotee be based on social and psychological maturity?

If someone asks me, “Are you an anti-theist?” straight up, I’m likely to say, “Yes.” Without hesitation. I do not support theistic religion, I defend the right to aggressively attack it, and I do so at times myself. But if someone gave the definition with all the baggage contained in the typology, I’d really hesitate. That’s not what I mean when I say I’m an anti-theist. There’s another option in the study that seems much more appealing:

The first and most frequently discussed type is what could be termed The Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic or IAA. IAA typology includes individuals who proactively seek to educate themselves through intellectual association, and proactively acquire knowledge on various topics relating to ontology (the search for Truth) and non-belief. They enjoy dialectic enterprises such as healthy democratic debate and discussions, and are intrinsically motivated to do so. These individuals are typically versed in a variety of writings on belief and non-belief and are prone to cite these authors in discussions.

IAAs associate with fellow intellectuals regardless of the other’s ontological position as long as the IAA associate is versed and educated on various issues of science, philosophy, “rational” theology, and common socio-political religious dialog. They may enjoy discussing the epistemological positions related to the existence or non-existence of a deity. Besides using textual sources such as intellectual books, IAAs may utilize technology such as the Internet to read popular blogs, view YouTube videos, and listen to podcasts that fall in line with their particular interests. Facebook and other online social networking sites can be considered a medium for learning or discussion. However, not only is the IAA typically engaged in electronic forms of intellectualism but they oftentimes belong to groups that meet face to face offline such as various skeptic, rationalist and freethinking groups for similar mentally stimulating discussions and interaction. The modus operandi for the Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic is the externalization of epistemologically oriented social stimulation.

In my experience, most atheists/agnostics want to be this type, whether they are or not. I certainly do. Do I enjoy debate and discussion? Yup. Am I intrinsically motivated to do this? Yes. Do I cite various writers on belief and non-belief? Sure. Do I try to associate with intellectuals of many different ontological positions? Yes. Do I read popular blogs, view YouTube videos, and listen to podcasts regarding religion? Certainly. Is my online social networking connected to debate and dialogue? Yes. Do I, in addition to social media, meet in person frequently to have discussions with religious and nonreligious folk? Of course. So I’d be an IAA, according to this study (along with at least a couple of the Four Horsemen, I think). Probably not, so much, an Anti-Theist. Although…I do get aggressive sometimes, I am against all ideas of God, I do protect aggressive discourse…so given a simple choice, I belong in the anti-theist camp.

But I get taken OUT of that anti-theist camp, thanks to the study, leaving myself open for people to disenfranchise my stance afterwards and say the number of anti-theists is “only” 14.8% — not including me.

The plot thickens, though, with a third stance that does pretty well in describing me:

The next typology relates to being socially active. These individuals are termed the Activist Atheist/Agnostic. Individuals in the AAA typology are not content with the placidity of simply holding a non-belief position; they seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere. This sphere can include such egalitarian issues, but is not limited to: concerns of humanism, feminism, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) issues, social or political concerns, human rights themes, environmental concerns, animal rights, and controversies such as the separation of church and state. Their activism can be as minimal as the education of friends or others, to much larger manifestations of social activities such as boycotting products, promoting legal action, or marching public demonstration to raise awareness. Activist Atheists/Agnostics are commonly naturalistic or humanistic minded individuals, but are not limited to these types of ethical concerns. It is not uncommon for AAA individuals to ally themselves with other movements in support of social awareness. The Activist Atheist/Agnostic’s are not idle; they effectuate their interests and beliefs.

So…I’ve often been accused of being a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) — a pejorative term for people who are obsessed with “egalitarian issues.” And I am obsessed with them — humanism, feminism, LGBTQ issues, political concerns, human rights — yes, definitely. I write about these concerns and engage in activism regarding these concerns. And I have yet to meet an atheist who was not interested in “controversies such as the separation of church and state.” I’ve been in marches, promoted legal action at times, and “educated” other people regarding these issues. Sometimes these efforts have had me working side by side with religious people, although I do not support their beliefs in the least.

So I guess I’m also an Activist. Which means you could you take the “activist” label here and divorce it from the “anti-theist” label — I’m not gonna lie; that kinda disturbs me. Or you could use the “intellectual” label to take away representation of both.

It seems a stronger study might have put people on a continuum, or plotted them on an x-y axis, because there are several different tendencies here.

All told, the three types I discussed here made up a total of 75.4% of the atheists surveyed.

I’m not saying they were all anti-theists according to our conventional definition of the word; that would be absurd. But I am saying that I identify, rather insistently, as an anti-theist, and yet I fit better in the two other categories according to the study definitions than I do in the “anti-theist” category. And my definition of an anti-theist isn’t weird or fringe — like I said, it pretty much can be found in Rational Wiki, a decent indicator of what people think when the term “anti-theist” comes to mind. I venture that many in atheist organizations can relate, as well, to my opposition. To tell you the truth, with that extreme definition of anti-theist — again, I’m surprised that 14.8% were found.

That study has been cited in several places, by the way: here in Raw Story, here in Religion News Service, here in the Daily Beast, and here in CNN.

Understand, I’m not saying it’s a bad study. It’s interesting and informative, though I think it could be done better; it was fun, when it first came out, to look at the different types and see which you most resembled. But using that 14.8% figure to imply that only that number is strongly against religion is misleading. Especially if you’re using it to say that most atheists and agnostics are OK with religions rituals.

But if you’re playing by that game, fine. Only 12.5% identified as atheists and agnostics identified as ritualists — who took part in religious rituals. Which, by the way, I don’t have a major problem with; at least they’re honest. I am in a position, myself, where I need to buck up against that.

Well, you counter, if you’re insistent, what about the nontheists — the people that don’t care. Maybe most atheists are, relatively speaking, just less obsessed?

Well, the nontheists came in last place at 4.4%.

But don’t worry about it — like I said, there’s more to it than meets the eye, anyway.