No religious or superstitious belief

+8 votes
413 views

Ok. Please treat this as a serious question!

How can you arrange categories for people with no superstitions or religious ties. i.e no belief.

This is difficult as it starts without a positive. Once you add a positive it starts to group people, The term atheist instantly groups. Where as in fact a group is exactly the opposite to what happens. Sub categories can be what ever you like..People feel safe groups hence religion. so. Humanists, Athiests, Philosophers are sub categories but of what?, For instance Satanists or Pastafarians don't really fit well as they have a belief. (I think)??? or do they?

With at very large and growing percentage of the population holding no belief. I am interested in recording famous non believers throughout history many often being ostracised or even killed for this lack of superstition and therefore identify them into the global tree categorised so they an be found., 

We have religious groupings so where does this fit.

Persecuted groups need to be included don't they? (Very very tongue in cheek).

 

in The Tree House by Chris Hoult G2G6 Mach 2 (25.3k points)
retagged by Ellen Smith
Is there a question you have Chris??
Do Pastafarians worship spaghetti?
Yes! They worship the flying spaghetti monster. However anarchists with a wry sense of humour is not what I am getting at all.
On a serious note, I think religions and non-religious philosophies overlap a lot. I am currently reading up on Stoicism. Stoicism generally isn't considered a religion, but they did believe in Logos, which is like a universal spirit in everything which orders the universe and is like a belief in an impersonal God. I would consider Stoicism a spiritual philosophy. On the other hand, the Epicurians had a lot of beliefs that overlapped the Stoics, but did not believe in Logos and I would therefore consider Epicurianism to be a non-spiritual philosophy.
Actually Chase your reply gave me a thought are we actually looking a sub categories. It is a given that a category starts with Religion in fact it it's a sub-category. Should it actually categorise from another starting point. But what? This is dodgy ground and I don't particularly want to go there. Maybe Beliefs or Philosophies to start with then sub categories on equal terms religion, non belief, superstition etc.etc then further sub categories.
Thanks for the opinions. A lot of thoughtful comments. I'm not sure everyone grasped why I asked the question ;-)  We really can't just be categorising a select few of famous or self proclaimed people it has to be inclusive.

Rightly or wrongly we need too categorise to help find people. The brown hair example is actually ridiculous. After all the first category would be Human Being then splitting into hair colour. ;-)

The Religion category is essential. The categorisation doesn't need to split into creed. But is very useful at congregational / church / tabernacle / mosque etc etc etc level as it locates the person very accurately. After all in the UK before 1837 it's about the only records we have. These were actually state records. The state forced the churches to keep these records.

I imagined the category would tend to be for notable non-believers or people who are adamant about there non belief i.e.active proclaimed atheists rather than the huddled masses who don't believe and just can't be bothered to argue ;-) .  Agnostic is not a non-believer they believe in a god just not the organised religious organisation. Some non-believers do start groups. the Humanists for example.

So just how do you start a subcategory for non-belief was really the question it cant be under Religion. Where do you categorise Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Baron d'Holbach, Dave Allen, Richard Dawkins, Sigmund Freud its a staggeringly large number of notables. You almost need a subcategory of this category.Say Business, Scientists, Entertainers etc etc. or perhaps just by location.

Its interesting that we are 'Happy as Larry" adding a suffix for the Religious leaders and Military Leaders. When we don't put Senior Engineer,  CEO, etc for other branches of society. After all none of them were born with that title. in fact non of them were born with a religion. a naming ceremony was later carried out to induct them into a religion. So we insist the birth location is accurate for the time of birth but not the name at birth ;-) I am more than happy that someone baptised in / christened whatever has the church or etc named as the birth location. What else is there.

So how do we categorise people that don't have a habit of adding titles to their names or just registered their birth.

"Agnostic is not a non-believer they believe in a god just not the organised religious organisation."

Actually, the definition is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

They are people who think there might be a God but they aren't sure if there is one. Kind of half way between a believer and a nonbeliever.

Ah a third category hovering in uncertainty ;-) Its a bit like believing the parents you have just added to a profile may be the correct one but ;-)
Why does this need a category? Can't it just be included in the bio?

7 Answers

+12 votes
 
Best answer
I believe the term you are looking for is agnostic. Another term which might be an even better fit is irreligious. Like some of the other comments, I would need to be educated as to what purpose such categories could serve as the group is so large and made up of many totally unconnected people.

In working on the recently adopted Principles for Religious Categories, we broadened the term Religions to Religions and Spiritual Traditions to make a better fit for some of these philosophical traditions that may not fit so comfortably under the term "religion."

Often the purpose of categorizing by religious belief is that families tend to worship together and family records are often found in religious congregation records.  Also, religion was often a major reason for families to migrate.  In some periods of history and especially within some religions, people tended to marry and form new families primarily within their own religion providing additional genealogical clues.  That said, it is usually far more effective to categorize a profile by the individual local congregations a person participated in than to lump everyone of the same religion together.
by Mary Jensen G2G6 Pilot (128k points)
selected by Jack Day
I think this is moving in the right direction but non-belief is not a spiritual thing. It's far from it. Please don't get me wrong, having spent the last few days assembling a Buddhist shrine for my partners relative, I believe in inclusivity. There has to be room for every one not just a brush off of "that's not needed I'm alright";-)
+7 votes
I wouldn't have thought this was a category worth creating.  It potentially would have millions and millions of profiles.  Something like creating a category for people with brown hair.
by Ros Haywood G2G Astronaut (1.9m points)
We have religious categories. How do you categories non religious in their various forms. You are right there will be many millions but not that many that would need categorising much the same as religious. You could remove all philosophical categories and titles as they have little bearing on genealogy. I guess.
It's not a strange idea to categorize "famous atheists" though. But there's a big difference between the non believer of today and yesterday. There was a very specific spiritualist movement in the 19th century. For example I am related to Kersey Graves (who came from a Quaker family) the author of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, which I'll just say is an often cited source and leave it there.

There is a small amount of worth to categorize non believers because it would tag people as not belonging to a church. You're not going to waste agonizing hours trying to find their local church records if they don't belong. None of my great grandparents were believers. We have several generations without baptisms. One set of my great great grands noted that they were unaffiliated with a church on the census, etc. etc. It all relates.
Yeah, I agree with Ros. I think a lot of categories on here are a bit like Category: Brown hair.
+9 votes
I see no need to categorise anyone by their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
by Lynda Crackett G2G6 Pilot (666k points)
The key time I would think it would be reasonable and appropriate would be if their Notability is because of their beliefs. Popes, famous Arch-Bishops, etc. are all Notable primarily due to their ties to the Catholic Church, for example. Categorizing the average Joe on whether he was a good church-goer or even joined a church once in his lifetime puts us back into the brown hair category all over again.
+7 votes
I don't understand where a religious category relates to profiles in WT.  Am I missing something?  

If there are religious categories, then "No Preference" works, without prejudice I would think.
by Robin Anderson G2G6 Mach 4 (43.3k points)
+9 votes
My feeling is that this falls into a category like any other "non-category" - which is to say there wouldn't be one. If you are not a part of something, then you wouldn't have a category for it. For example, if your profession is that you are a chef, you wouldn't then categorize all others as "non-chefs". Likewise, if you are in a religion or follow a particular religion or religious philosophy, then the expectation wouldn't be that everyone else would be considered a non-Protestant, or non-Christian, or non-Jewish, or non-Muslim, or non-Satanist for example. I think if we added all the non- categories to WikiTree, we'd find ourselves buried in categories very quickly.
by Scott Fulkerson G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
You do of course have secular non-religious Jews. That is different from being Christian or say an Islamist. Its splitting hairs but it adds to the how do you categorise ?The British writer David Baddiel is a Jew but is secular.
+5 votes
And what about the person who throughout their life did NOT  believe in God but on their death bed, stated that God did exist. How would you categorise  this person? Oh, by the way this relates to Charles Darwin.
by Rionne Brooks G2G6 Mach 7 (71.1k points)
As Mary noted, the main genealogical benefit of religious categories is that people tended to participate in religious groups with family members and the groups kept records.  If the person's own religious pilgrimage seems worth writing about, it would seem like the biography is the best part for that.  That would certainly seem the case with Charles Darwin.  I think he may have been baptized in St. Chad's Church, Shrewsbury, if I recollect correctly.  The greater genealogical significance is in terms of what organizations he may have left tracks in, rather than what his personal faith, or lack of faith, was!  There is no reason, too, that he could not have more than one categorization, so St. Chads if his baptismal record was there, and if he affiliated with an agnostic or athiest society at some point, then certainly a category for that entity as well.
I think you are getting where I am going ;-) With over 50% of the UK now non-religious many belong to other groupings. In Sweden and Iceland you could probably throw away any religious category. But for the older population and the ancestors some need categorising into a religious location if that is what they are traceable by. So al local church or indeed a secular society location etc. I see no problem with Notable Catholics or Notable Islamist or Athiests being tagged as such. But as you say not Joe down the street. How ever the church attended could do with a tag to locate. I guess if he was regularly thrown out of his local pub and is found in court records time and time again that is a similar location finder. So do we need to name the pub ;-)
Joe Crawler, who was thrown out of the pub, could have a quite interesting bio summarizing his exploits!  However, if the pub was the gathering place for the extended family and you had several generations all linked by the same pub, it would make a quite interesting category.  Or even a small project!
This myth about Darwin is a myth. He never said anything in his deathbed about belief or unbelief
His grandson  said he did
Source please. Every reputable site I've looked at says it's a myth.

* https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-fantasy-of-the-deathbed-conversion
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion
* http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

and even "Answers in Genesis"! https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/darwins-deathbed-conversion-a-legend/

And no versions mention his grandson in this context. His son and daughter denied Darwin did any such thing.
+4 votes
I kind of wonder how far back in time you can actually go with this. Knowing that 40% more documents were burned on the atheists body, after the atheist was executed for being disobedient towards leaders and world rulers over what then long ago was used more so as a luxury for the poor and even middle class in some circumstances. Back in those older eras it seems you of had too been crazy too not act like a true believer for charity,which applied too the grand majority.
by Living Smith G2G6 Mach 5 (60.0k points)

Related questions

+23 votes
2 answers
+7 votes
1 answer
+10 votes
1 answer
+14 votes
3 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...