Vorkosigan

Thanks Jack, it would appear that Nomad has utterly missed the point on every level. Both agnostics and declared atheists are "atheists." This is well known, except to Nomad, of course. Nomad may be entirely correct in declaring certain forms of Buddhism theism, but the issue is that if certain strains of Buddhism are "theism" for having belief in minor beings with supernatural powers, than Christianity must be polytheism on that same basis. That's obvious.

In short, all of Nomad's post is to say that he has no idea what he is talking about, has no numbers, and can make no argument.

Very quickly, according to the SESTAT figures at the NSF site, there are 12.5 million people who are scientists and engineers in the US. In 1997, 3.4 million were working in their professions, 41% were engineers (1.37M), leaving about 2M as scientists, of those, we know from Larson and Witham that 60% are atheists, creating 1.2M in that tiny subgroup alone. Assuming broadly similar proportions for the remaining nine million, that would leave us with 3 or 4 million atheists in that subgroup alone. And that's assuming no engineers are atheists, which is absurd.

So much for Layman's 1.6 M figure.

Poor Nomad, unable to come up with solid numbers, he simply bleats about definitions. Do you have any numbers, context or argument at all to support your figure of 1.6M atheists? I assume your silence on that in your last post is indicative that you have no case.

When is Layman going to give me some evidence that the atheists of China were created by forcible indoctrination?

I'm assuming Layman's continued silence on this topic, now stretching into some 120 posts or so, means that he has no argument, evidence or case at all.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Michael

Layman

You can define it however you wish. But I was clear on what I meant and I specifically exclude agnostics and "nonreligious" persons as atheists.

Yes, and the atheistic communists in China are working hard to convert Tibetan Buddhists into atheists because they are too religious.

I don't think that people who believe in a spiritual world are properly classified as atheists. Whether they believe in a "western style" supreme diety or not.

You are lying. I never said that communism was the only factor explaining atheism. How can we have a discussion if you guys keep inventing positions that I never had? I never claimed that Christians were polytheistic and I never claimed that communism was the only factor explaining atheism. In fact, I was quite clear that some, perhaps a lot of, atheists arrive at their belief of their own free will. But I stand by my assertion that most atheists were produced in oppressive atheistic regimes that persecuted religious belief and actively promoted atheism.

I'm glad to see that you do have faith.

Then you are offended by someone other than myself. I never claimed that communism was the only explanation for atheism. This is a terrible and deceitful misrepresentation of my argument.

Your "think" is devoid of evindentiary support. Time has spoken. And what it has said is that your faith is misplaced. The farther away we get from the fall of the atheistic communist regimes the fewer atheists there are (again, to be clear, not counting agnostics).

1993: 240 million.
2000: 150 million.

It seems the more freedom people get the fewer atheists there are.

But hey, what the heck, just for giggles lets look at the number of "nonreligious," which includes agnostics, to see how they are doing since the fall of communism.

1993: 876 million.
2000: 763 million.

But again Toto, I admire your faith.

[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman

Again, it is not my figure, it is the World Almanac's figure. And you have completely ignored the fact that Larson didn't test "scientists" in general but only polled a specific and distinct organization with about 126,000 members.

I have, tons. China began severely persecuting all "faiths," including Confucianism during the Cultural Revolution. The number of religious adherents dropped while the number of atheists rose. Since China has relazed its anti-religious policies the number of adherents has began rising again. And, apparently, the number of atheists have dropped. This also corresponds with the rise of atheism in European communist countries and atheism's decline in those countries since religious freedoms have been restored. Although China still has a long way to go before they have anything akin to religious freedeom.

Your only response has been to resort to definitional games and gross methodological inconstiencies. Oh, and a lot of insults.

Nomad

Thanks for your info Toto, but my definition comes from the dictionary, and although you, Michael and Jack appear to have problems with that, I can't help you there. If you have a source for your contrary opinion, and can show why Webster's got it all wrong, I would be happy to look at it.

I just used the dictionary, and it tells me that an agnostic has not made a decision to believe or not believe in any god or gods.

Yes, I am aware of all of this, and with all due respect to the Pope, I am not looking for a Western definition of an atheist, but a comprehensive one. I offered one from the dictionary, and have yet to see Buddhists describe themselves as being atheists. After all, you did know that the ancient pagans considered Jews and Christians to be atheists, yet they were quite mistaken. The Pope may well be wrong as well. Therefore, the challenge is the same offered to Michael. Demonstrate that Buddhism is an atheist religion (if there is such a thing), and that all Buddhists are atheists, and then I will be content.

Telling me that they do not accept a supreme being is hardly interesting. Many polytheists do not believe in such a being either. Are they atheists now as well?

Here I see that you have the same problem as does Michael. Believing in a being is quite different from worshipping that being.

For example, a Deist believes in a Creator God. He does not, however, worship it. Yet he remains a theist. A polytheist worships many gods, none of whom may be supreme or even very powerful. A monotheist worships one God, usually omnipotent. All of them are free to believe in other supernatural beings.

Once again I will refer you to a dictionary to help you:

Webster's.com

Main Entry: mono·the·ism

: the doctrine or belief that there is but one God

All Christians confess one God. If Layman has done otherwise, then please show me where he did this.

Main Entry: poly·the·ism

: belief in or worship of more than one god

Please note, there is no requirement in this definition that there be a supreme being or god.

Sadly it now appears to have become one. Let me ask you Toto, by your logic, given that many Buddhists are obviously theists, are Christians Satan worshippers?

Where did Layman say this? That is not my reading of his original posts, nor any of those that have followed.

Michael has dug himself into a very deep hole, and is now using bluster and insults to try and get out, all without having to apologize, admit he was wrong, or that he just got carried away.

Remember, there are two different words for atheist and agnostic. Any desperate attempt to make them now the same is really a very bad semantic game, and should be avoided. Once Micheal does this, then perhaps this issue can be put to rest, but he is a very stubborn sort of fellow. With luck, and common sense, however, he will eventually back down, or simply withdraw from the discussion.

Since no one has made this claim, what is your problem here?

Unfortunately, the actual empiracal evidence is against you here Toto. I understand your desire to believe this, but would recommend that you stick with the evidence and what can be demonstrated.

Atheism is in decline. One day it may rise again, but unless Communism or something like it gains power in some large countries, this does appear to be unlikely.

Nomad

[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Lance

Wow...and I mistakenly thought this thread was on the shroud of Turin...

Consider this guys (on the athiest/agnostic/etc argument).

What one is considered is often a perspective issue. From Nomad's perspective, I'm a flaming hard atheist as I most explicitly deny his cult figure as a God. Therefore I am saying "Jesus is not God" so it follows I am an atheist.

Yet from a purely objective viewpoint, I consider myself an agnostic. I have found no evidence for a God, would consider it if offered. What I have been offered to date is rubbish.

Its all viewpoint.

And I strongly suggest that most of those folks don't have a clucking fue about their beliefs. They believe because their parents believe, they don't question because its not politically correct. They know little science, even less history, and don't care.

So numbers of adherents is really almost a worthless discussion. Perhaps a more worthy discussion is how many are as indoctrinated as say Nomad?

Toto

I picked up on what I felt was the spirit behind Layman's words - that only communism could explain the success of atheism. While he did not explicit say that all atheism was due to communism, he came close.

On Buddhism - put "buddhism atheism" into Google, and you get things like this (copied from the cache):

I challenge you to find any Buddhist who describes Buddhism as theistic. Most of the minor gods and spirits that Buddhists deal with are assumed to be hangovers from previous folk religions that are tolerated, but are not derived from Buddhist teachings.

On agnosticism, please consult the Pope of the Agnostic Church, our own Bill Schultz, who quotes Huxley:

Nomad

Now I know why I like having you around Lance. You never let a fact stand in the way of a conclusion.

FYI, I think you are an agnostic. Why you thought that I thought you were an atheist is beyond me. And why you think that I believe that anyone who denies that Jesus is God is an atheist is even more curious.

I offered my definition of both atheists and agnotics, and got them from the dictionary. Websters was good enough for me.

As for your own views on the matter, they obviously came out of your head. I don't have a problem with that, of course, but I am more interested in those beliefs that have evidence to support them.

Nomad

Layman

In other words, you are putting words in my mouth and I never said any such thing. As you and Turton have shown, I guess that is just a risk that must be born by theistic posters on the SecSeb.

All I really said was that the majority of atheists have been produced in and by atheistic communist systems dedicated to promoting atheism and persecuting religion. So I never came "close" to saying that the only reason there were atheists was communism. Such a statement would be ridiculous and subject to ridicule. And, as you realized, much easier to attack.

Some atheists arrived at their decision of their own free will with no authoritarian pressure to convert. The majority did not.

Nomad

In other words, you made this up from conjecture, and tried to put words in Layman's mouth. Since I assume you do not like it when others do this to you, I would suggest that you avoid doing it to him.

And this quote sums up very nicely my point. The definition of an atheist is not one that rejects the notion of an omnipotent creator being. It is someone that does not believe in any god or gods at all. I am surprised that I even have to explain this to you all. Since many Buddhists do accept the existence of gods of some type, then they are theists (probably pantheists, although some may be polytheists).

And as for what Bill believes, ask him why he does not call himself an atheist. At that point, I would hope you would admit that atheists and agnotics are two distinct groups. During this thread that has been Laymans point, and the fact that some of you wish to quibble about this is quite strange.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

Your only response has been to resort to definitional games and gross methodological
inconstiencies. Oh, and a lot of insults.

My dear Layman, it was you who began this thread by announcing that atheists continued to spread their beliefs by forced indoctrination, that the majority of atheists supported forced indoctrination, and sundry other nonsense. The tone of this debate was set by YOU. YOU opened with insults, smears, and errors, and got your head handed to you.

And speaking of definitional games, here's one of yours:

You can define it however you wish. But I was clear on what I meant and I specifically exclude agnostics and "nonreligious" persons as atheists.

Hmmm....but most agnostics ARE atheists -- they do not believe in god. Unless you have some other definition of atheism that no atheist I know shares. After all, the redoubtable Nomad's definition of agnosticism means that all agnostics are atheists -- not being committed to belief in god IS atheism. As I said, they may have a different take on a-theism, but nearly all agnostics are atheists. I am surprised that neither you nor Nomad has recognized this elementary fact.

I have, tons [of evidence].

Where? Where is it? No one reading this debate has seen it.

Your case would have to begin by showing that there percentage of atheists in China was higher than it was prior to 1949, and higher than it would have been had there been Communist Revolution and attendant persecution. Since you have not even begun to put forth evidence addressing those points.....

China began severely persecuting all "faiths," including Confucianism during the Cultural Revolution.

Layman, you should really read some history. Any history. Persecution of various faiths began long before that. Can you tell me what year the Communists took over China? What can you tell me about Communist religious policy in the '50s? Can you even tell me what year the Cultural Revolution began? Or what it was about? Or who its leaders were? Or why it stopped? Or, in addition to religions, what other things were attacked?

The number of religious adherents dropped while the number of atheists rose.

Evidence?

Since China has relazed its anti-religious policies the number of adherents has began rising

Evidence? I would suspect that the number of religious adherents has stayed the same throughout this period, they just went underground and lied to the authorities, as they always do in China. Can you give us any reason to think that people would tell the truth about their religious beliefs in China, when such behavior could get one punished?

again. And, apparently, the number of atheists have dropped.

No doubt! As we have seen, China has the lowest percentage of atheists of any Chinese state, by a goodly margin! Any more indoctrination and they'll be no atheists at all.

Far from producing atheists, Communist indoctrination has produced a a theistic environment in which more people practice religion than go to church on Sunday in the US!

This also corresponds with the rise of atheism in European communist countries and atheism's decline in those countries since religious freedoms have been restored.

If you believe that people were telling the truth to the authorities in these states, by all means go ahead. But I doubt many people will pay much attention.

Although China still has a long way to go before they have anything akin to religious freedeom.

So far you have not produced a shred of evidence to show what atheism in a Chinese context might mean, as well as to prove that Chinese atheists -- whoever they are -- were created by forcible indoctrination.

Here's why the situation is so screwed up. External figures, given by the government, show that less than 10% of the population, give or take a percent, could be atheist. However, internal documents made public say that there are only 70 million religious people in the whole country (perhaps they mean only non-Chinese religion, which that figure would cover nicely)! However, in 1996 the Hong Kong newspapers reported that almost 18,000 Buddhist temples had been destroyed in a 3 month campaign in China in Zhejiang province alone. Multiply that by all the provinces of China....

In other words, the internal figures are bullshit. The external figures are bullshit. And if you had asked me, as I said at the very beginning of this conversation, if there were any atheists in China, I would have said "no" (using your broad definition of religious=theist). As far as I know there are no solid numbers coming out of China on almost anything (this is simple fact that anyone familiar with statistics in E. Asia could tell you -- such as yours truly, since I have both witnessed and participated in the manufacture of such numbers). Those wonderful economic growth numbers during the Nineties were punctured by US academics who found other indicators (such as electric power usage growth) didn't track economic growth. And don't get me started on Soviet numbers. There's a good book called The Tyranny of Numbers I think, that covers the Soviet demographic data. Do you really think the Chinese numbers are useful or trustworthy on anything? I sort of doubt it, and that goes double for Vietnam and N. Korea.

External academic critiques of Chinese sources put the real religion figures much nearer to those the State department has. Amnesty International has yet another set of figures; you should check their site. Additional problems, as I know from 12 years of research and interaction in Chinese society, that Chinese habitually lie to authorities, especially those gathering information. As the writer Bao Yang once noted, the reason pyschotherapy has never caught on in China is because you have to tell the truth to your therapists (check out his The Ugly Chinaman).

A dramatic example of this is Taiwan Independence (you can stop reading now, Layman, I'm writing for people who want a more nuanced view of things than so far you have shown you are capable of dealing with.) In the period 1960-1986 Taiwan Independence was repressed and polls consistently showed everybody supported unification with China. However, as soon as opposition parties were legalized and people began to feel safe, the number of open supporters of independence skyrocketed. Polls conducted by the rapidly pro-unification New Party show 40% of the population openly supports independence, up from 0% twenty years ago.

Now, it is really absurd to think that suddenly everybody changed their mind. Rather, what happened was, people began to feel safe and began to express their true feelings. Since I lived through this transition and was actually there for most of it, I know this for a fact.

I have not played definitional games with you Layman, you are (probably deliberately) unable to understand the complexity of religion in Chinese society. It is totally different than in the west. I have absolutely no idea how anybody could conclude that there are X number of atheists in China -- I'd sure like to see that poll, and the questions it asked, and definitions used. By some definitions, all Chinese are atheists, by others -- yours, Layman, for example -- they are all theists.

As we have already seen, the rapid decline in "atheism" in Eastern Europe represents the fact that people feel safe once more acknowledging that they are theists, after years of repression from an authoritarian regime.

And you have completely ignored the fact that Larson didn't test "scientists" in general but only polled a specific and distinct organization with about 126,000 members.

Oh, well, you're right. With only 126,000 members, it certainly isn't very representative.

Of course, the polls that show ~7% of the population does not believe in god (are atheists or agnostics) don't count either. Yes, I guess you're right, an unsubstantiated number in an alamanac is much more authoritative than Barna, the NORC GSS, Gallup and a slew of other polls.

But I stand by my assertion that most atheists were produced in oppressive atheistic regimes that persecuted religious belief and actively promoted atheism.

No Layman, this was not your assertion, and you are lying. Here is what you actually said:

• The point is that athists have mostly spread their belief by government coercion.
• I am claiming that the growth in atheism in this century is largely attributable to
  oppressive government coercion.
• Athiesm has been most succesful when backed up by oppressive governmental coercion.

You have openly and specifically linked the growth in atheism to coercive action on the part of government. You cannot now weasel out by saying that atheists were merely "produced" in societies where theists were persecuted, as if they were precipitated from the air on a cold day. Not only have you failed to make anything like a case, you have now lied in order to squirm out of it.

You are required, by your own words, to show that coercion actually produced atheists and no other forces were responsible, and that the current proportion of atheists is higher than it otherwise would have been had there been no Communists.

Since I have found evidence from the other Chinese states, all of which are more irreligious than China, that in fact China has produced FEWER atheists than its Chinese neighbors, your claims have been utterly refuted.

I expect your next post will address the context of the numbers, including the high figures for nonbelief in the societies that rim China, and not merely put up big numbers, as if that showed anything. If you wish to believe polls taken under Communist repression, by all means do so. I hear there's a demand for people like that at the CIA.

Michael